A VEIL OF DEVIANCE: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER PERFORMANCE AND
MEDIA ENGAGEMENT IN REALITY TELEVISION
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Sociology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Sociology
by
Korin Raquel Vallejo
SPRING
2014
A VEIL OF DEVIANCE: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER PERFORMANCE AND
MEDIA ENGAGEMENT IN REALITY TELEVISION
A Thesis
by
Korin Raquel Vallejo
Approved by:
______________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Todd Migliaccio
_______________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Kevin Wehr
_____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Korin Raquel Vallejo
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credits is to
be awarded for the thesis.
_____________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. Amy Lui
Department of Sociology
iii
____________________
Date
Abstract
of
A VEIL OF DEVIANCE: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER PERFORMANCE AND
MEDIA ENGAGEMENT IN REALITY TELEVISION
by
Korin Raquel Vallejo
Following Norman K. Denzin’s theory on media message transmittance and
audience engagement this study sought to examine the gendered messages being
communicated through the reality television program “The Bad Girls Club”. Season four
of the show was transcribed in an ethnographic approach; with efforts to fully engulf in
the culture and sub-society of “The Bad Girls Club” and with the self-proclaimed deviant
women on the program through a social constructionist lens. To grasp media engagement,
two public viewings were held in which the researcher played participant observer in
order to gage the audiences’ interaction, receipt, and implantation of gendered messages.
This study uncovered many traditional feminine performances; often times
masked behind masculine displays as well as the dependency of masculine performances
on feminine ones; whether in others or within individuals themselves. The public
viewings were able to show audience engagement all the way to an implementation stage
iv
within a one hour showing. Further researcher in gendered message transmission and
media engagement by audiences is called for in the lesser studied area of noncompetitive, non-celebrity reality television.
_____________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Todd Migliaccio
_____________________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my family who not only convinced me that I was capable of taking
on such an endeavor but continuously pushed me to complete this study, even when it
was so tempting to do otherwise. Without your love and support I would never have
made it through this project nor to this level of achievement in life. I owe every
accomplishment to you all; I love you.
Also, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Todd
Migliaccio, who continued to support my efforts through this study. There were many
times I was close to giving up, but your encouraging words kept me positive and
continuing forward. Without your guidance this work would never have come together
and I am very appreciative to have had this opportunity to work with you. Thank you for
all you did.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract …...….….…………..…..…………….………….………..………………….. iv
Acknowledgments ……….…...……………………….………………………………. vi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION …………….…...……….…………...……………………..….... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Gender ………….……...…….…….…..……………………………………….. 6
Themes of Women on Television .….…...………..……......……………..…… 11
Media Engagement .…………..……..……..……..…..……………………….. 15
Reality Television……….……….….………….……………………………… 21
Research in Reality Television ..……….……………………………………… 25
3. METHODS
Data: “The Bad Girls Club”………….…..……….………………………….… 30
Data Collection ……………...….…….…….…………………….…………… 33
Ethnographic Qualitative Content Analysis…….………….………….…….… 33
Data: Media Engagement ...………….…………….…………………..……… 37
Data Analysis …….………….….………….……………..….……….……….. 38
4. RESULTS
“Bad Girls”…………...……………..……….……………..………………...… 42
“Good Girls”…………….………….…….….……………………….……..…. 55
Annie ……………..…….………………….……………....…………………... 64
vii
Acceptable Sexuality ……………….………………..…..……………………. 72
Public Viewing …..……….….……..………………...………………...……… 82
5. DISCUSSION ….….….…………….……………………………………………... 92
6. CONCLUSION ………….….….….………………………………………...…… 100
7.
REFERENCES ……….….…...….…..…….……………………………….…… 104
viii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
A study recently conducted by the Nielsen Research Foundation on media
consumption found the average American spends up to twenty percent of their day
watching television, which equates to a little less than 60 hours a week. This same
report estimates that in 2012 over 56% of American households will own three or
more televisions; with 97% of households owning at least one television. This is a
large jump from the less than 60% of households that owned only 1 television in
1975 (Nielsen Research Group 2010-2011 Television Audience Report). Essentially,
television viewing has become a daily and consistent activity in people’s lives and
the increase in the amount of televisions in the household only seems to be aiding in
the rise of television consumption. With almost one fourth of a person’s day being
filled with television media it is vital to examine what is being watched in order to
grasp the messages and effects that may be emitted from this source and thus the
effects of this media type. The study of what is being communicated through
television is vital because “television has become the primary common source of
socialization and everyday information (mostly the form of entertainment) of
otherwise heterogeneous populations” (Gerbner 1998:177).
The current variety of television shows and programming choices are vast and
continue to expand daily. There are channels dedicated specifically to sports, to do-ityourself projects, to history, to animals and many more and varying topics, themes,
and varieties. As with most aspects of society there are trends and waves of television
2
programs that become popular and are strongly viewed. For example, media trends
showed in 2006-2007 14% of the television viewing was featured films, but by 20092010 featured films percentage had fallen to less than 6% of all television
consumption (Nielsen Research Group). An increasingly popular television program
type in America is reality television (which was not studied as a category in the
Nielsen report). Reality television has been described as “popular factual
programming” and has had a more massive marketing push by producers and a more
enthusiastic response from audiences and viewers than any other television program
type in history (Holmes and Jermyn 2004:1). This popularity and upsurge of reality
television may be partly due to the increase in televisions in the household and/or the
amounts of television consumption in general, but it is still important to study reality
television, independently from other programming types, as a major media source for
American television viewers due to its increasing popularity.
Reality television is supposed to present the “real” lives and actions of those
on the screen but often it is more of a “fusion of popular elements of television
entertainment” (Brancato 2007). Much research has been conducted to examine the
trends and themes of television programs; findings related to reality television
specifically include an increase in social networking use for viewers (Stefanone,
Lackaff, Rosen 2010), overgeneralization of women stereotypes and roles (Engstrom
2003, Cavender and Jurik 2004, Cohen and Waimann 2009), and an over
sexualization and objectification of women (Stern 2005; Ron and Bissell 2006). Some
3
research has also shown that through aspects such as “social cognitive theory” or
“cultivation theory” individuals may model a character they believe to represent
themselves or believe what they are viewing on television is an accurate portrayal of
reality (Stefanone, Lackaff, and Rosen 2010; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan Signorielli and
Shanahan 2002). Supporting research conducted on this idea has shown that
individuals may model behavior despite the socially undesirable attributes of such
behavior and that young women are the more susceptible to this theory than others
(Cato and Carpentier 2010). Due to these findings it is vital to understand what
aspects are being represented in reality television as they may be reflected back into
society by viewers.
As reality television continues to dominate the media, it is important to
examine what representations are being presented through this media source. Many
aspects of society are presented within reality television, one in particular, in which
this study will focus on, is gender. Distinct from one’s sex, gender is created, learned
from and monitored by the society and culture from which one lives, yet traditionally
falls into two labeled categories of masculinity or femininity. Gender is viewed as a
process through which all individuals undergo throughout life; something that is
continuously learned, structured, and readapted to cultural standards (Lorber 2010;
West and Zimmerman 1987; Ridgeway and Correll 2004). This ever present facet of
human life effects individuals on multiple levels, “…involving cultural beliefs and
distribution of resources at the macro level, patterns of behavior and situational
4
structures at the interactions level, and selves and identities at the individual level”
making gender an inescapable aspect of life (Ridgeway and Correll 2000). Society
attaches different standards and expectations for females, who are to be feminine, and
males, who are to be masculine. For example, there are gender expectations for a
person’s physical body determined on whether that person is male or female (Lorber
2010). These distinctive categorization and unavoidable effects of gender also leads
to issue of inequality, as males receive and are allowed to replicate different
messages than females and vice versa. Uncovering these messages is not always clear
or simple, as “it [gendered messages] can be communicated overtly and explicitly,
and they can also be communicated subtly, inadvertently, and unobtrusively through
culture” (Denny 2011). It is important to examine how gender is being presented in
our culture, as gender has such a considerably unavoidable affect on individual’s lives
and can sometimes go unnoticed due to its covert messages. This project hopes to
explore how the female gender is being represented in the reality television program,
“The Bad Girls Club” from the cable channel the Oxygen Network. This program was
selected because all of the participants are female, and since the goal is to examine
the cultural representation of the female gender, it was deemed appropriate. Having
examined all previous seasons, season four was selected for research due to its high
levels of viewership (www.oxygennetork.com). The goal of this study will be to
examine how the women in “The Bad Girls Club” are doing gender in their day-today lives including words, behaviors, actions, and personal video diaries that are kept
5
throughout the season. The researcher will approach the data with a social
constructionist perspective on gender and gender in society and culture. With no
explicit hypothesis or preconceived outcomes, the researcher will be making use of
Norman Denzin’s theories on media message dissemination and media engagement,
as well as using an intricate coding system of the data, in revealing and discussing the
findings to ensure the results are of an empirical nature.
With this research I intend to examine messages of gender that are displayed
through this reality television program and to speak on the effects of these messages
in society and culture. Consistent messages overtime have an effect on society;
“…gendered messages shape our view of the world and deepest values… define[ing]
what is considered good or bad, positive or negative, moral or evil” (Kellner 1995:1).
This potential impact on people and society makes the examination of gender and
gendered messages vital for understanding our society. As “The Bad Girls Club” is
centered around eight self-proclaimed deviant, yet proud women, it is interesting to
identify what messages are being sent out regarding gender from this program. In
viewing “…television as the distinct and dominant cultural force of our age” it is
imperative that examinations, such as this, are done in order to study the messages
being communicated to society (Gerbner 1998:191).
6
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Gender
According to the American Sociological Association, gender is defined as “the
traits and behaviors that are socially designated as ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ in a
particular society” (Persell 1996). Many different sociological schools of thought
approach, construct and explain gender differently. The social constructionist
perspective believes that sex differences are isolated from gender and gender
differences. Social constructionist ideals are unique in that they believe gender is
“produced and maintained by social processes” (Lorber 2010:244). It is the idea that
people are constantly engaging in gendering and gendered behavior and actions, from
the time of birth, throughout childhood and into adulthood, because one’s gender is a
part of one’s identity. “Gender is an ‘invisible hand’, a set of cultural rules that pattern
face-to-face encounters. This [is a] taken for granted frame works as long as
participants live by gendered rules, as they generally do” (Lorber 2010:251; Acker
1992). Gender is something people are groomed into from birth and then becomes a
continually adapting part of who the person sees themselves as being, thus affecting
the person’s interactions, behaviors, practices, and all other aspects of the self in the
public sphere.
One of the more popular works of theory from this school of thought was
done by Candace West and Don Zimmerman, titled “Doing Gender”. In their work,
the researchers argued that members of society become forced to engage in certain
7
types of gendered behavior and actions and are essentially “hostage to its [gender]
production” (West and Zimmerman 1987:126; Allen 2004). They claim that as
members of society we are being evaluated and judged according to our gender; in
order to remain an acceptable member of society, one must play by the prescribed
roles of one’s gender. But by doing so we are perpetuating the system; a system
traditionally full of patriarchy, lower statuses for women, and traditional roles for
both the sexes (Connell 2010). By maintaining the status quo, others in society are
forced into following and abiding by the prescribed rules as well. West and
Zimmerman argue that individuals’ sexes are hidden, since the determination of this
is most commonly covered by clothing, therefore society socializes individuals to act
according to their different sexes, i.e. designating people into sex categories so the
according sex can be easily determined by others and segregation between the sexes
can be enforced (West and Zimmerman 1987; Rakow and Wackwitz 1998). Once a
person’s gender is established and enforced by society the expression of it is often
seen as a natural occurrence; this is due to the societal pressure and gender
socializations the individual goes through. West and Zimmerman argue that this
natural assumption is used to explain differences in career choice, futures, societal
roles, sexuality, etc. between men and women. What is being missed is the “selfregulating process” that an individual goes through daily in order to stay in line with
society’s gender standards and the standards taught to them through socialization
(West and Zimmerman 1987:140; Allen 2004). For example in Kathleen Denny’s
8
examination of Boy Scout and Girl Scout handbooks, which were believed to
represent the interests of the children for who they were created, she found that the
girls’ handbook contained more group and artistic activities while the boy’s contained
more independent and science-based work. Denny (2011) concluded that these
handbooks further the cultural standard for boys and girls because they are being
molded into prescribed characteristics determined by their sex. The handbooks served
to regulate behaviors for these children which are then incorrectly assumed to be
natural characteristics of the individual.
It is a generally accepted thought that this difference between the sexes leads
to inequality, as one category gets a superior placement due to the misconceived
notion of a natural origin of gender (West and Zimmerman 2009; Connell 2010).
West and Zimmerman stress the importance of understanding sex and gender as
interlocking but separate concepts, the recognition of the historical and structural
influences and control that exists over gender in society, and the accountability on an
individual level (West and Zimmerman 2009). Many studies have been conducted in
order to explore or display the effects of gendered identities and the effects it creates
between the sexes. There are generally two approaches, the first being to show the
differences between male and female identities. Some have stressed the social
construction of gender and the conscious actions of gendered behavior and actions
between men and women which leads to inequality (Berkowtz et al. 2010;
Ohannessina 2009). The production of inequality is also supported by others aspects
9
such as “hegemonic masculinity” which is the superiority of the masculine identity
defining what socially acceptable for individuals. Femininity is defined as what
masculinity is not and devalues its worth by doing so (McGuffrey, Shawn and
Lindsay 1999; Weitzer and Kubrin 2009). These studies have shown that one’s sex
often dictates the acceptable gendered behavior one is allowed but also has shed light
on the inequalities and restrictions such meanings have created in our society. Others
have shown the presence of inequality by examining those who have made the gender
and sexual transition from one category to another. Schilt and Westbrook found that
female to male transgendered individuals found the transition much easier and more
acceptable than those who transitioned from male to female. Through interviews and
case studies, the researchers concluded that current gender standards create an
atmosphere in where masculinity is viewed as superior, therefore society questioned
and challenged male to female transgendered people more for their decision to make
the transition to an inferior sex and gender (Schilt and Westbrook 2009).
The other common method used to challenge the belief of the natural
differences between the sexes is done by showing similarities between the two.
Through the use of a likert scale, Perrin and his research team challenged “John
Gray’s Mars-Venus” idea which advocated those women’s experiences and feelings
towards love and relationships were different from men’s (Perrin et al. 2011). John
Gray argued that men thought more on a physical level, with a goal to impregnate as
many women as possible, while women were more on an emotional level looking for
10
a supportive male figure. Perrin and his team found that there were actually more
similarities than differences between the sexes in their desires and expectations from
relationships. Furthermore, they argued that when there were differences, such as a
women’s greater desire for relationship support, it coincided with traditional gender
roles which they traced back to socialization (Perrin et al. 2011). Other studies
examining similarities between men and women have found that they both share an
identical desire for a physical body predictive of overall health in their partner
(Montoya 2007), both manage same-sex conflicts with friends through finding
communal goals (Keener, Strough, and DiDonato 2012), both structure same-sex
groups through a hierarchical structuring and rank order (Mast 2001). Even
similarities in communication styles have been shown between men and women when
expressing support (Gooden and Winefield 2007) and through modern technology
such as Instant Messaging (Fox et al. 2007).
It is important to frame gender through the social constructionist lens, as this
is how gender will be approached throughout this study. The main take-away being
that gender is socially constructed for individuals and it is continuously being
developed and crafted throughout one’s interactions, behaviors, and throughout life.
Sex and gender are not synonymous and are instead two distinctively different aspects
for individuals in society. Gendered existences are supported and reproduced through
individual’s continuous performance of gender. Yet, individuals conduct gender
performance because of unavoidable societal pressure and socialization from birth.
11
This continues cycle of gender performance and production has and continuous to
support a level of inequality through patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity and lower
statuses for women and femininity in our society.
Themes of Women on Television
This concept of inequality has led many researchers to other areas, including
media outlets such as television, to explore if its presence is perpetuated through this
sphere. Women in television have been shown to be under-represented compared to
their male counterparts (Genderwatch 2000; Escoffery 2006), over sexualized and
given less amounts of power, even when they are the main character of a program
(Whitney 2001; Stern 2005; Netzley 2010). Even television presented for women has
been shown to present hegemonic portrayals of feminine roles, behaviors and
expectations (Engstrom 2003; Banet-Wesier and Portwood-Stacer 2006; Murray and
Ouellette 2004; Holmes and Jermyn 2004). When women are presented in less
common roles, such as Gary Cavender and Nancy Jurik’s study on a female lead
detective program or Stacy Mckenna’s study on a program covering women with
drug addictions, the female characters are given shortcomings. In Cavender and
Jurick’s study the female lead is constantly being challenged by male counterparts
and her successful public life is presented with a loss of a private one (Cavender and
Jurick 2004). Mckenna’s study found women’s reasoning for drug use leaned more
towards the stereotypical feminine ideal, such as staying thin and maintaining a
12
certain physical body type or attempts to meet a supermom lifestyle which includes
managing the home-life, children, work and overcoming tiredness from daily stresses
and the pressures of living up to this ideal (Mckenna 2011). A similar study
conducted in Europe examined the presence of women in comedy (a traditionally
male dominated sphere) and found that women comedians were more often
marginalized and were considered less likely to reach across to opposite sex
audiences then men due to traditional ideals on women’s roles and restricting
behaviors for women (Bore 2010).
When women attempt to deviate from their gender standard, as women in a
study of the program “The Apprentice” did, they are shown higher levels of pushback
from their team and overall found it harder to adopt the opposite sex’s gendered
behavior than men experienced in adopting stereotypical women’s behaviors (Cheung
and Sung 2011). Even when the design of the program allows women to venture from
their gender norm, such a Marla Harris’s study on “Paradise Hotel”, which is a dating
competition show, the women still found themselves facing backlash. Harris
concluded that women on the program were judged more than men for switching
partners and engaging in multiple personal relationships. Also, there was a socially
acceptable limit to the competitiveness women were allowed to portray; if the women
were more strong-willed and domineering they risked being labeled a “bitch” and
being voted off the show. If the women who won decided not to split their winnings
with their partner they were labeled as “selfish”; a label not placed on the men for the
13
same decision (Harris 2004). Harris concluded that the program depicted a
stereotypical woman’s need to be a part of a heterosexual coupling, or they faced the
risk of being seen as abnormal (and fell into either being accused of having too many
partners or having an inability to partner at all), and as a consequence they were
kicked off (Harris 2004).
Over sexualization and objectification are also seen as a common theme for
women on television (Stern 2005; Banet-Wesier and Portwood-Stacer 2006). A 2009
study conducted by the American Psychological Association Task Force concluded
that the strong presence of sexuality for women in television held negative
consequences for both men and women. They stated that for women, the effects
included negative body image and self-esteem issues due to the pressure of living up
the media’s image of women. For men, the study concluded that the media enforced a
standard of a singular female identity that men hold women to, limiting women’s
roles and abilities in society (Lerum and Dworkin 2009). The idea of living up to the
feminine ideal was also present in the “Paradise Hotel” study conducted by Harris.
She found that women who portrayed common female traits such as passivity or less
amount of physical or emotional strength compared to men were considered weak and
unnecessary and they were often dismissed. Lastly, Harris found that women
engaged in more altercations and arguments with other women than men with other
men, but when the women engaged one another the validity of the argument was
viewed with less merit than that of the men’s disagreement (Harris 2004).
14
Women are also shown less credit in the sports world, through less air time
and differences in the language used by commentators to describe the female athlete
versus the male athlete (Halbert and Latimer 1994; Cunningham et al. 2004). When
women are shown to be skillful at a sport, there is usually a level of extra femininity
attached to the women; commonly known as the “feminine apologetic”; this being the
idea that women who engage in a high level of competition must counter this
traditional masculine trait with large amounts of traditional feminine traits outside
and inside of the sporting world (Festle 1996, Eitzen 1999, Schell and Rodriguez
2000). Example can include, having nicely polished hair, always appearing well-put
together even when participating in the sport, being seen as kind and welcoming to
the public or any other trait society may label as feminine. Griffin describes a female
athlete as having to appear “heterosexy” meaning they must appear heterosexual and
physically attractive according to cultural standards in order to balance out their
masculine participation in sports (Griffin 1992). This pervasive pressure by society to
exaggerate levels of femininity for female athletes can “trivialize and impede
women’s effort to realize their full potential” (Shell and Rodriguez 2000:1). Not only
does this societal pressure place restrictions on women, if they wish to play
competitively in sport, it is a pressure that does not exist for male athletes simply
because the idea of competitiveness, participation in sports, and other traits such as
these are traditionally masculine traits therefore acceptable with no conditions for
men (Griffin 1992; Shell and Rodriguez 2000; Festle 1996, Eitzen 1999). When
15
women are shown on competition shows, similar trends are seen. Women are
presented as being less smart, and their incompetency is shown as acceptable if a
standard of socially acceptable beauty is present (Cato 2008).
According to Lisa Bennet this presence of inequality between men and
women is dangerous because it endorses gender inequalities in our society. The
National Organization for Women (NOW) claims the media, that portrays these
inequalities on public airways, are in violation of the 1937 Communications Act
which states television should “serve the public interest” and the government is not
holding them responsible for this (Bennet 2002). Although there have been many
studies and examinations of women and women’s representation in television
programs, there seems to be a significantly smaller amount of examinations
conducted in the reality television sphere. This is most likely due to the newer nature
of this media type. Reality television is portrayed as a reflection of the real world and
since “…television [may] contribute to the establishment of dominate cultural norms”
it is important to stop and examine what is being portrayed in all of different types of
television media (Cato 2008:23).
Media Engagement
As with many other portals of socialization in our society, the media is an
outlet through which individuals engage with and often times use in defining their
identity. Norman K. Denzin argues that media is “a self-reflective mirror that enters
16
into and structures lived experience” (1989:50). Media consumption is therefore more
than a simple one-way interaction; the media is sending messages and at the same
time the viewer is actively interacting with those messages. The viewers are not
passive in this interaction between individuals and the media; they play a vital role in
the acceptance, interpretation and applicable use of the messages being disseminated.
In sum, there is control by the media, as they are the creators and broadcasters of the
messages being distributed, yet, the individual maintains an amount of agency as they
are active in this process. Yet, there is an even greater control in this process- social
expectation. Denzin claims that the messages and interactions that take place between
the media and the viewers are mediated by social and cultural expectations and
realities (Denzin 1989; 1995; 1997). Therefore the cultural standards and realities of
gender (including inequalities, stereotypes, and expectations) are being reflected
through media messages as they are hostage to society’s standards. It is vital to
examine the messages and interactions being circulated as they are used in the
creation of identities for media consumers.
The messages being transmitted through media are understandably affected by
many factors: the actors/participants, the editors, the directors, etc. These messages
are constructed by the “negotiation of symbolic meaning pertaining to various codes
[in society]” according to the perspective of the individual who is creating them
(Vannini 2004; Denzin 1991, 1992). These “symbolic meanings” that both Vannini
and Denzin refer to can only come from one mutual place- the societal reality of
17
which we are all a part. Denzin argues the messages being sent from the media, no
matter the source, are structured by the status quo of society and used to support and
maintain the societal regularity (Denzin 1989; 1991; 1995; 1997). Messages
reflecting the status quo of society are easy for viewers to accept, even if only
subconsciously, because the status quo is a relatable factor for all viewers no matter
their individuality. They may be messages the viewer does not agree with, but they
are understood as these messages reflect the societal status quo and the viewers are
members of society.
Television, as a media source, is capable of dispersing many messages
depending upon the viewers preferred channel or program. Therefore when an
individual makes a channel or program choice there must be something appeasing
about the source to which the individual is drawn. It is a decision by the viewer to
engage with certain messages being distributed from a specific channel or program
over others. This may not be a conscious decision, but the decision is important
because the messages viewers receive “shape and define situated cultural
identities…They mediate structures of meaning” for the viewer (Denzin 2012:339).
From this perspective, it would seem the viewer maintains high levels of agency, but
this is the not case. As mentioned, the messages, no matter the program choice, are
structured as reflections of the status quo in society and therefore work to maintain
the status quo (Denzin 1988; 1995; 1997). Denzin also argues that the social outlet of
media specifically targets certain messages for certain individuals (Denzin 2012).
18
Therefore, the messages being transmitted from a sports program will cater the
societal reality of men, as men are the majority of sports viewers, while a talk-show
will cater to women, for the same reason. In this way the individual may believe they
have control over their media consumption, yet, there is a high probability that the
program they are selecting is sending messages that were created specifically for
them.
Viewers do maintain a level of agency as the receivers of these messages. As
the recipients, viewers are capable of differing understandings or interpretations
based on their personal, unique lived experiences. Phillip Vannini describes this as
the “meso level, where the micro level of personal experiences and the macro level of
cultural and structural dynamics are mediated” (Vannini 2004:65). No matter what
the crafted messages being distributed from the media source, it is the viewer who is
left to determine its importance, meaningfulness, and applicability based on the
unique individual’s lived experience. In this way the mass messages being sent out
can be altered to fit certain individuals. This agency most likely takes place on a
subconscious level, as a person may not be aware of how their individuality is
affecting the message intake. The messages from the media are all relatedpropagating the status quo- yet, it is the individuality of each person that shapes the
process of applying the messages by the media in the consumers’ lives (Denzin 1995;
Vannini 2004).
19
Even with this level of agency on the part of the viewer the strong socially
constructed messages from the media work to maintain the status quo of society
(Denzin 1989). How the individual reflects the message may change person by
person, but the main message remains the same and the goal of the messageperpetuating the status quo - is attained (Denzin 1989; 1992; 1995). Take, for
example, the sexual objectification of women, a common message transmitted by the
media and useful for this study. Depending upon the person’s social class, race, age,
etc. expressions of sexual objectification may vary, yet, women no matter their
agency, often abide by the societal expectation of sexual objectification. Therefore,
although the viewers are actively engaging with the media the messages being
transmitted and accepted by the consumers work to maintain the status quo of sexual
objectification of women. Individuals may have some agency in the expression of the
messages, but the strong societal expectations are often times unavoidable and are
perpetuated through the consumer.
There has been much work done in investigating this interaction between
media and the individual. With the assumption that audiences socially construct
reality by using media sources (Denzin 1997, 2002), John Atkinson, Rosemary Black
and Allan Curtis’ study showed a new level of interactivity between “the new social
movement networks and alternative media” (Atkinson 2008:485). Following
Denzin’s concept on audience agency in message transmittance (Denzin 1995),
Myrian Sepulveda dos Santos argues that a film can “illuminate multiple meaning”
20
dependent upon the viewer and their individual experiences (Sepulveda dos Santos
2003:61).
When examining the active communication between the media and the viewer
it is important to identify all aspects of the process. Denzin advocates that the process
is an active one, both by the media and the viewer, the media disseminates socially
structured messages that work to maintain the status quo, while the individual’s
personal lived experience shapes the reflection of these massages in the person’s life
(Denzin 1991, 1992, 2002, 2012; Vannini 2004). The messages from the media are
not random and are crafted to reflect cultural norms to the intended audience (Denzin
1989; 1992, 1995, 1997). Essentially, all media messages may vary in expression by
an individual, yet the basic premise of each message is being perpetuated in society
by the viewers. The goal of this research will be to make use of Denzin’s media
message transmittance while applying it to the reality program “The Bad Girls Club”.
Individuals are not unaffected by the media they consume, there is to some degree a
level of response, reflection and engagement involved. This study hopes to closely
examine the messages being sent through this reality program and to comment on
their effect in society, in particular how people interact with them as a reflection of
their own identities.
21
Reality Television
The use of real people and real events in television programming has become
a cultural phenomenon; one that has effected television programming on a global
scale. The origins of this programming type are unconfirmed, but some trace them
back to as early as the 1950’s with game-show programs and humorous based
television such as “Candid Camera” (Holmes and Jermyn 2004; Murray and
Ouellette 2004). It is acceptable to say that “reality TV has rapidly come to occupy a
place at the forefront of contemporary television culture” (Holmes and Jermyn
2004:1). Currently the term reality television is used to describe a wide array of
programming types and no set and clear definition of the term has been accepted on a
universal scale. It is this broad application that leads scholars in struggling to keep up
with the fast changing and adaptive pace of reality television (Holmes and Jermyn
2004; Murray and Ouellette 2004). Reality television differentiated itself from other
programming types by involving real people, not actors playing a part or role, often
using videos in the character’s real environment or one similar to it. Reality television
can be most similarly compared to documentaries, in the sense that they both attempt
to capture real life, but unlike documentaries, all participants of reality television are
individuals who have willingly chosen to participate in the filming process, clearing
away any human subject issues that many documentary style films still encounter
(Murray and Ouellette 2004).
22
The reason behind the rise of reality television is difficult to pin-point, but
some suggested reasons include: a rise in surveillance and video recording in the
private and governmental spheres which leads individuals to accept one’s life as
being recorded, a rise in technology allowing easier recording devices to be used and
leading to more natural scenes (Murray and Ouellette 2004) or simply the
inexpensive nature of filming and creating reality television, and the possibility of
quite a large financial gain if the show is successful (Escoffery 2006). As with other
popular media outlets, reality television has fallen under scrutiny related to the
morality and the cultural values it is portraying for society. Yet, at the same time,
reality television has in some sense aided in the diversifying of television (Murray
and Ouellette 2004). Essentially it is important to view this programming type
through a lens of the culture in which it is being aired and filmed. What is socially
acceptable behavior or actions for one culture may not be for the next, therefore the
reality programming for each culture may differ as it will aim to be acceptable by the
society with which it is being aired to. Due to its global success, reality television is
viewed by a variety of cultures and societies, creating differing take-ways and
representations (Holmes and Jermyn 2004).
Although titled “reality television” the validity of a real representation of a
person’s life or interactions being shown through the show is weak. The final product
which viewers watch at home is a much edited production of the actual events which
might have taken place. Simply having cameras around may alter one’s actions or
23
reactions to something, not to mention the many producers and editors who combine
footage, add sound, slow down scenes for added drama, etc. all in order to produce a
more eventful or dramatic scene in hope of attracting a larger audience. Certain
situations or interactions may even be designed, orchestrated, or caused by an outside
source (such as a producer) in order to film the character’s reactions. This
manufactured reality is understood and accepted by the audience who still seem to be
drawn to this type of programming and may still believe there to some sense of reality
being presented (Stern 2005). Although not fully a true representation of a person’s
life, reality television can present an image or lifestyle of certain individuals which to
some degree may accurately portray their life, interactions, daily routine, and who
they are.
These images of individuals being portrayed through reality television,
although understood not 100% real, are presented in a manner that would indicate
otherwise. This false presentation of the reality of an individual’s life creates a unique
experience for the audience. There are no fictional characters; instead the story lines
involve around real people simply playing themselves and often times living their
daily lives. In this sense, the messages related to societal standards and behaviors are
presented in a different light because the veil of reality is over their interactions,
behaviors, communications, etc. This sense of reality makes the behaviors and actions
of the person in the program translate to the audience slightly different compared to
that of an actor playing a made up role with a script. There is almost a sense of
24
stronger reliability and commonality between the person in the reality program and
the individual audience because of the cover of realness presented in reality
television.
The reasons for viewing reality television include “an opportunity to sample
other lifestyles of reality”, the simplicity of the program type which allows viewers to
pick up anywhere in the season and the ability to follow the story line, the minimal
amount of attention needed when viewing, and the opportunity to view another
person’s life and consider how one would react or respond to the situations on the
show (Lundy, Ruth, and Park 2008:220). This ease and opportunity are what attract
viewers and have helped to make reality television as successful as it has become.
The genre of reality television is vast, and the amount of programs which fall under
this category are varying dependent upon the channel or individual making the
categorical decisions. Although reality television uses the real lives of real people in
attracting audiences and gaining success, there is more to be examined through this
media portal. Reality television can “show us social interactions, group dynamics,
interpersonal struggles, the process of voting, and even, perhaps, the workings of
power itself” (Escoffery 2006:2-3). The level of validity that reality television has in
portraying an individual life is unimportant, instead this source can show a glimpse
into the world of social interactions, cultures or subgroups unfamiliar to us, or lives
we wish we had. Reality television advertises itself as authentic, and although this
25
may not be entirely true, information from this media outlet can still prove to be
useful and valid for society.
Research in Reality Television
Reality television has been summed as shows that present real people living in
real environments, but no universal definition is accepted in any discipline (Lundy,
Ruth, and Park 2008:220). Yet attempts have been made in understanding how
audiences categorize reality television based on their individual conclusions. A study
conducted by Robin Nabi found that romance and competiveness were the two
categories used most commonly by viewers in sorting reality programming, which
may be attributed to unrealistic dating habits and the “meanness” of societal
competitive nature (Nabi 2007:383). The study concluded with the importance of
understanding the viewer’s perception of the show when studying the effects or else
one risks assuming all reality television shares a common theme and effect on society
which is simply not possible when considering the differing and plentiful amounts of
available reality programming (Nabi 2007).
Further research has shed additional light on the effects of reality television on
its audience. Monique Ward’s (2002) study found that those viewing higher levels of
reality television were more likely to support stereotypes of sexual relationships,
including women’s value being placed in their sexualization and men as being sex
driven machines who engage in recreational sexual relationships more than women.
26
This study also found that those who were exposed to more reality television were
more likely to believe in higher levels of sexual relations for their peers than those
who were not as exposed (Ward 2002). Other studies have shown a connection with
individual’s lives and reality television, such as an increase in accessing social
network sites, the amount of friends on these sites, and an increase in the amount of
sharing personal information and pictures for those who watch higher levels of reality
television (Stefanone, Lackaff, and Rosen 2010). Yet, the images and messages of
reality television, such as overgeneralization of the female identity and role (Brancato
2007) and hegemonic standards for women (Engstrom 2003; Banet-Wesier and
Portwood-Stacer 2006; Murray and Ouellette 2004; Holmes and Jermyn 2004) do
appear to be recognized by audiences. Concern over the effects of reality television
on society have shown that individuals who consume high levels of reality television
showed more concern for others than themselves regarding the effects of the
programming style (Cohen 2009). Another study concluded that audiences were able
to categorize reality television programming into good versus bad quality, with good
focusing on improving lives or helping others and bad focusing on deception,
psychical or emotion harm or ridicule. This study also recognized the audiences’
ability to identify exaggerative or exploited themes, ideas or topics (Lundy, Ruth, and
Park 2008).
When examining differences between the sexes, studies have found that
reality media affects individuals differently: higher levels of reality television has
27
shown a rise in anxiety for young girls but the opposite effect on young boys
(Ohannnessina 2009). Also a correlation has been shown in young women with high
levels of reality television consumption and sexual permissiveness if combined with
sexual empowerment (Cato and Carpentier 2010). Yet, other research does suggest
that female viewers can identify the difference between built up stereotypes for media
and reality. In Danielle Stern’s focus group, which aimed at uncovering portrayals of
sexuality in the MTV series “The Real Word”, the participants believed that often
times the women on the show played up their sexuality for the camera, following the
belief that sex sells. Yet, even with this recognition the general consensus of the focus
group was that the show was a “real portrayal” of society, insinuating that female
members of society must also feed into this sexual standards of the media (Stern
2005:20). The differences in portrayals of gender for the sexes have been shown to
affect the people viewing it, yet, even when they recognize an exaggeration the
audience still claims the program to represent cultural reality. Therefore, even with
the extras and fluff that may exist in reality television, audiences are accepting it as
real, and the messages being expressed through it, such as gendered behaviors, are
also being accepted and are having an effect on society.
In sum, the majority of research in the reality television sphere has been
approached through the audiences’ or viewers’ perception and has focused on the
effects or connection to society. The results have shown many negative portrayals of
women and possible negative effects for society. It is important to approach reality
28
television through many different aspects; as vital as audience interpretations may be,
they vary, as audiences vary. For example, the report from the American
Psychological Association described the sexuality of women on television as harmful
to society, but other researches argue that sexual freedom and agency is something
many feminists have argued in support of for many years. They view the restriction of
female sexuality as taking steps backwards in the progression of women’s rights and
not a productive maneuver towards equality for society (Lerum and Dworkin 2009).
Therefore, simply viewing the cultural representation of reality television and
showing what is being presented in the program is a gap that needs to be filled in the
field. As informative as the previous literature may be on interpretations and
audience’s take-away, it is important to enter the data with no preconceived notions
of reality television.
The goal of this research will be to address the following gaps in the present
literature; first, to examine the cultural representation of women’s gender through
reality programming, which has a shorter research history than other television
programming types, most likely due to the fact of it being a newer style. Second, to
examine the specific female centered, non-competitive designed, reality program of
“The Bad Girls Club”. Of the research being conducted on reality television, the
majority falls within the competition sphere, with the expectation of “The Real
World” but “The Real World” lacks the exclusive female example that is available
only on “The Bad Girls Club”. Currently, there are numerous other programs that
29
simply follow the lived experiences of those on a specific show, but “The Bad Girls
Club” is unique in that the women on this show are not celebrities, as most other
participants of lived experience programs are. Finally, unlike most research
conducted on reality television, this study will not be viewing the findings from solely
an audience’s perception or understanding, instead the goal will be to identify the
themes of gendered cultural representation being presented on the program by the
participants and to possibly speak on the effects these messages may have on society
as they are capable of “mediating and defining social life” for its viewers (Denzin
1995: 215). This will be conducted with the understanding that media consumption is
an interactive process by the audience. Yet, the messages being transmitted through
this media portal are strongly structured by societal expectations and are used to
perpetuate the status quo of gendered norms (Denzin 1989; 1992; 1995, 1997, 2012).
With the completion of this study, the researcher hoped to add to the current literature
on reality television through a gendered lens with the intention of developing a
greater understanding of the “real” cultural representations of women on television.
30
Chapter 3: Methods
The goal of this study was to uncover displays of gender in the reality
television program “The Bad Girls Club”. The inescapable presence of gender is
something that is taught, monitored and controlled by culture (West and Zimmerman
1987, Ridgeway and Correll 2000, 2004, Lorber 2010). Culture being vast and broad,
this research has chosen the cultural portal of television; in particular, reality
television, as it has become a popular and ever dominating category within media
thus being viewed by many members of society (Holmes and Jermyn 2004, Gerbner
1998, Murray and Ouellette 2004). The objective was to examine what gendered
messages are being translated through the cultural gateway reality program, “The Bad
Girls Club”, and possibly to speak on the effects of those messages.
Data:” The Bad Girls Club”
“The Bad Girls Club” is an American reality television show which began in
2006 and airs on the Oxygen cable network. The basis of “The Bad Girls Club” is the
public viewing of seven self-proclaimed deviant women living together for three
months while their every action both inside and outside of the house is recorded. Each
season a new group of women is selected, ranging in ages from 21 to 27 (a standard
established by the second season) and coming from various racial, ethic, and
economic backgrounds (www.bad-girls-club.oxygen.com). Yet, a certain level of
economical means is understood, as all the women are able to live somewhat
financially stable for three months without work. As far as this researcher can
31
comprehend the housing is free but the women are still held responsible for providing
all their food and leisure activities (such as road trips and alcohol). Characteristics of
the women vary, but a description of a “Bad Girl” is given by the show and usually
written somewhere publicly in the house:
“A Bad Girl knows what she wants and how to get it. She makes her own
way, makes her own rules and she makes no apologies. A Bad Girl blazes
her own trail and removes obstacles from her path. A Bad Girl fights and
forces her way to the top with style and beauty. A Bad Girl believes in
jumping first and looking later. People will love you. People will hate you.
Other will secretly wish to be you. A Bad Girl is you.”
– Bad Girl Club
Oath (http://bad-girls-club.oxygen.com/)
Throughout their time in the house all members participate in a video
diary which is a camera set up in a concealed location somewhere in the house.
This allows the women time to reflect on, and discuss in private away from the
other roommates, occurrences that take place; yet this footage is used for
production in the airing of the show and all participants are made aware of this
fact.
This research focused on season four which consisted of thirteen regular
season episodes, had a total appearance of eight women and aired from
December 2009 until the finale in March 2010. This season was selected because
32
of its popularity and high viewership; the premier episode was “the most
watched season premier ever” in the shows history to date (The Futon Critic). All
the women voluntarily chose to participate with the show and auditioned first
with video tape submissions (these videos were not used for analysis as the
researcher did not have access to their full length). They then went through a
casting call process before the original seven women were chosen. Since the
names and identity of the women have already been shown (as part of their
participation on the show) no pseudonyms will be used. Throughout the research
all the women are referred to as they were on the show; with only first names.
The cast members’ basic demographic information is listed below in Table 1. All
race determinations were made by the researcher with the exception of Florina
and Natalie who stated their race during the season. The first seven women were
the original cast; Lexie was added mid-way through the season in response to
Portia being forced to leave the house for violating the house rule against
physical violence.
Table 1. Participant Demographics
Name
Age
Race
Amber
23
Caucasian
Annie
25
Caucasian
Florina “Flo”
26
Albanian American
Katherine “Kate”
23
Caucasian
33
Kendra
22
African American
Natalie
24
Puerto Rican,
Brazilian and Black
Portia
24
African American
Lexie
21
Caucasian
Data Collection
Every episode from season four of “The Bad Girls Club” was transcribed and
notes were taken on actions, dress, behaviors, non-verbal communication, etc. in
order to capture the entire scene during the analysis process and have a suitable
amount of data to examine and study (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2004). The two part
season finale was excluded from the research because it is simply a reunion where the
participants discuss events that took place throughout the season and it is their actions
that take place in the house that is of interest for this study. Consistent accounts of
time were also recorded so as to make the process easier to go back and review
certain scenes or dialogue if needed.
Ethnographic Qualitative Content Analysis
Ethnographic research maintains culture as a central component of the data
and as part of the data analysis, as often the goal is to examine how a specific culture
forms and maintains itself through “interactions, roles, ceremonies, and rituals and
34
artifacts of the cultural group” (Marshall and Rossman 2011:19; Rossman and Rallis
2003). Traditionally this research method involves participant observation or some
sort of involvement in the culture to grasp the culture’s realty within its natural setting
or environment. The goal of this method is to establish the “recurring patterns of
behavior and relationships” in the culture (Marshall and Rossman 2011:139). An
intricate level of note keeping and reviewing allowed the researcher to find meaning
in the patterns and behaviors and relate those meaning back to the specific actions
(Patton 2002). Through this research method the researcher was able to analyze a
deeper level of understanding of the culture, how it’s made and how it is maintained.
Traditionally memo writing is used throughout ethnographic examination as a
place for the researcher to keep thoughts and organize analyses, in the design of this
study it was this researchers plan to maintain a traditional memo book throughout
data collection and analysis process. Yet, once transcription began, the researcher
discovered that maintaining both the traditional memo and transcripts was too
overwhelming. Therefore once the transcripts were complete the researcher then
began the memos process. Doing so “help[ed] the researcher “(a) to grapple with
ideas about the data (b) to set an analytical course (c) to refine categories (d) to define
the relationship among various categories and (e) to gain a sense of competence and
confidence in their ability to analyze data” (Denzin and Lincoln 2003:263). Through
editing of the paper these memos were cleaned up and presented in a more
professional format. All of the comparisons conducted through the coding process
35
were done in the memos because it was a space where the researcher could openly
make connections and explore their support in the data. This memo process allowed
the researcher to become completely engulfed in the data, therefore accurately
capturing the reality of the subjects and the messages being expressed.
As this research is an examination of a reality television program, it is
impossible for the researcher to engulf herself and live in, and with, the culture being
studied as a traditional ethnographic study would be done. Thus, the goal of the note
taking and memo writing was for the researcher to achieve as close a level as possible
to understanding the culture, meaning, and messages from the reality television
program. Essentially, the data is content: content from the transcriptions of the
program. Therefore, the goal of this research will be to combine the ethnographic
note taking and memo writing techniques with a qualitative content analysis
examination of season four of “The Bad Girls Club”.
The use of content analysis as a method of data collection is most commonly a
quantitative endeavor, in which the researcher looks for certain information and
quantifies it accordingly, but when using this method for qualitative purposes the goal
is in “isolating, defining and illustrating the categories” desired (Berelson 1952:115).
Qualitative content analysis involves more complex themes and has less formalized
categories than quantitative research. Interpretations in qualitative work tend to be a
part of the analytical process, whereas they tend to follow the analytical process in
36
quantitative work. Yet, strong connections can exist between the two methods, even if
as simply as counting how often themes emerge in the study (Berelson 1952). The
operationalizing of definitions can be left for the end of the study; if the intent is to
find meaning that arises from the material, the defining of key ideas will be created
through the analysis process and presented in the findings and discussion (Berg
2009).
The data collection method for this study pulled from both traditional data
analysis methods but also combines ethnographic approaches through the use of
memo writing. The researcher recorded words, as traditional data analysis
transcriptions would, but actions, dress, facial expressions, nonverbal
communications, etc. are also recorded during the data collection. This gravitates
this study towards a more ethnographic and qualitative work than a traditional data
analysis examination would be. The goal of this broad data collection was to
examine the complete expression of gender by the participants, and in order to fully
grasp this information the research needed to capture more than the sharing of
words, which is a goal most commonly associated in ethnographic studies. The
memo writing, also from traditional ethnographic works, allowed the researcher to
grapple with themes, trends, personal thoughts and analysis while arriving at
determinations and findings. The hope was that the combination of these two
methods, both ethnographic and content analysis, may allow the researcher the
opportunity to delve deeper into the data and pull strongly supported patterns and
37
themes of gendered displays. This blending of methods, although not common, was
necessary to properly access the deep level of analysis this researcher hoped to
accomplish with this study.
Data: Media Engagement
As described in the previous chapter, the process of participating in media
viewing is a dual interaction. The media distributes messages related to culture,
society, etc. and the viewer engages with these messages and reflects them based
upon their own experience (Denzin 1991, 1992, 2002). According to Norman K.
Denzin, the messages are created based on the societal expectations of individuals in
society, but, the individual shapes how those messages are portrayed in their own life
(Vannini 2004; Denzin 1991, 1992, 2002). Moving beyond solely an analysis of the
messages portrayed through the shows, this study also intended to analyze how others
interact and engage with the show, since this factor may vary person to person. To
examine this, two public viewings were held where participants watched two episodes
of “The Bad Girls Club”. This allowed the researcher opportunities to observe
people’s interactions and engagements with the messages being transmitted from the
program.
The study used both convenience and snowballing sampling that was
conducted by sending out an email to potential participants who were affiliated with
the researcher, who then forwarded this email to their friends. Each person who
38
agreed to be in the study was asked to bring another person with them to the showing.
The participants met at a public local restaurant and viewed the newest airing of the
show, which was episode two of season ten and episode three of season eleven of
“The Bad Girls Club”. The goal was to observe their reaction, engagement, and intake
of the program therefore the different cast and season is less important. The
researcher played the role of participant observer during the showing; taking notes on
the episodes, participants and others in the restaurant, while occasionally engaging in
conversation and dialogue so as to make it a more comfortable atmosphere for the
participants. The researcher informed the participants of their option in declining to
participate in the study prior to attendance and again before the show began. The
researcher utilized similar memo writing methods to gather data as had been
conducted with viewing the shows. This allowed for a continuity of the research by
having similar data forms. As with the previous data collection, the analysis of the
data from the public viewings followed identical methods as the analysis of the
episodes. As this content was collected through participant observation methods this
portion of the research leans even more heavily toward an ethnographic research
model (Marshall and Rossman 2011).
Data Analysis
Keeping the researcher’s goal of exploration in mind throughout the analysis,
it was decided this combination of ethnographic and qualitative content analysis
39
would best fit the parameters and goals of the study. Although not a traditional study,
this work aims at being empirical nonetheless, by abiding by structural and guide
lined analysis. The simultaneous involvement of data collection and data analysis
allowed the researcher to closely examine what is taking place, develop a feel of
useful data and gives room for self-awareness through memo writing. The finished
research contained a limited amount of raw data so as to display the support for the
categories, but not too much so as to distract or pull attention away from the
categories themselves (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2004). The analysis portion was
complete when all categories had been compared, defined, defended, and labeled. The
researcher’s goal was to explore this area of pop culture that seems to be somewhat
prevalent in the media today. Other methods would not have given this work the
exploratory nature desired by the researcher.
The analysis “consist[ed] of systematic inductive guidelines for collecting and
analyzing data to build middle-range framework that explains the collected data”
(Denzin and Lincoln 2003:249). Therefore, there was no hypothesis or introductory
question when entering this data; instead the final conclusion emerged from the data
itself. There was a topic of interest to start the research; which was to explore the
reality pop culture world of deviant women, but no assumptions were made
beforehand as to the conclusions making this work exploratory (Hesse-Biber and
Leavy 2004). Through self-transcriptions and repetitive reading and analysis the
40
researcher hoped to clearly understand the subjects and the communications between
them and to uncover meaning regarding the gender displays of the participants.
The researcher began with an open coding process, or line-by-line
examinations, which entailed going through the transcripts one line at a time and
simply writing down the actions taking place. In line-by-line coding, the simplicity of
defining what is occurring also helps to avoid any personal ideas or thoughts that may
belong to the researcher (Denzin and Lincoln 2003; Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2004).
During this process it was the researcher’s goal to use “active terms” related to
gender and public representations of gender that can be used further on in the analysis
portion (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2004:507).
Once line-by-line coding had been completed, the next analysis process
involved looking for common trends or repeating patterns of action. This was done
by examining the already described actions by “(a) comparing different people (such
as their views, accounts, actions and experiences)(b) comparing data from the same
individual with themselves at different points in time (c) comparing incident with
incident” (Denzin and Lincoln 2003:260). This process uncovered strong and
prevalent codes which the researcher then used in conducting focus or selective
coding. This next level of coding allowed the researcher to go back to the data and
conduct theoretical sampling if necessary, which involved revisiting the data to
examine if the code may be present in other people, actions, scenes, etc. The purpose
41
of this process was not to enlarge the generalizability or sample but to ensure
connections and ideas are clarified (Denzin and Lincoln 2003; Hesse-Biber and
Leavy 2004). From this point, once connections and ideas were clearly formatted and
supported the codes transformed into categories. These categories were examined
again through a comparison format between “data, incidents, context and concepts”
(Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2004:511). It is vital to keep in mind the context from which
the qualitative data came from, this context can and should play into the analysis and
findings of the research (Jensen 2002). When dealing with television, and most
especially reality television, the context of producer editing, acting, re-shooting, etc.
all play into the final product of the program and these effects were discussed as a
factor in the restrictions, conclusions and future research possibilities.
42
Chapter 4: Results
The title of “The Bad Girls Club” insinuates, in its simplistic definition, that
these women are bad at being girls. The only way to reach such a conclusion would
be to monitor their feminine behaviors which traditionally coincide with being a
female or girl. It is assumed that since they are “bad” at being feminine their
behaviors throughout the season would reflect non-traditional feminine behaviors,
actions, interactions, etc. Therefore we will begin by discussing non-traditional
feminine behaviors and actions of the Bad Girls and continue onto contrary actions to
the idea of being bad at being girls. This topic will lead us into the ideal feminine role
model of the show and then discussion of acceptable expressions of sexuality by the
women and how this differed in the household throughout the show. Lastly, we will
discuss the engagement concept by reviewing responses to the show that were taken
during the public viewings. In sum, we will review the gendered behaviors to see how
they reflect on the girls being bad and how the audience engaged with these messages
from the show.
“Bad Girls”
As can be expected the roommates did not always see eye-to-eye or befriend
every other participant. There were emotions of dislike, distrust, negativity and
unfriendliness quite often throughout the season. The expression of these emotions
often led to very resounding examples of nontraditional feminine performances.
Almost all of the women during the season engaged in some sort of face-to-face
43
argument with either another roommate or individual. Often times the cause of this
type of altercation was simple dislike of the other person:
Amber tells Kate to get out of her [Amber’s] part of the room [as they share a
room]. Amber says this little platform is hers [Amber’s] and Kate is sitting on
a couch in this area. Amber says, “Because I’m higher up than you are; get
down.” Kate says, “Do you know how stupid you sound?” Amber tells Kate to
go; Kate says no. Amber says, “You want me to help you?” and walks over
towards Kate, Kate says, “Don’t touch me.” Amber moves the couch off the
platform, telling Kate, “You can stay down there ‘cuz you’re not welcome up
here.” Amber continues to rant at Kate who stays quiet until Amber turns to
leave, Kate says, “Are you done?” Amber answers, “No I’m not done,
probably won’t be done all day.” Then Amber yells, “Can we send Kate
home?” (Field Note 12.309-12.315).
Traditional feminine standards would dictate that when a woman is unhappy
or unpleased they would suppress their emotions, but these women rarely suppressed
their anger, dislike, or general feeling towards others. The women ignored feminine
performance protocol and instead practiced very confrontational methods to their
emotions, insisting on expressing their feelings and refusing to suppress them. Unlike
the traditional expectation of feminine behavior, these women often engaged in
arguments and verbal attacks on others, such as Kendra’s attack on Kate:
44
In the car on the way home, Kendra says to Kate, “Don’t be a rude ass bitch,
Kate.” Kate says that she [Kate] is just sitting there with her mouth closed.
Kate says that she [Kate] hasn’t done a thing all night “except try to get the
bill comp’ed.” Natalie tells Kendra to stop. Kate tells Kendra to shut up and
Kendra says, “Fuck you bitch, fuck you, you’re the bitch I’m after right now,
watch yourself; watch yourself. Don’t show up now” (Field Note 8.2718.275).
Kendra continues to express her anger towards Kate in her personal video diary entry
and further harassment of Kate during the same episode:
“I’ve been frustrated with Kate ever since she decided to open her mouth in
this house. So she wants to pick on everybody else, how about she pick on me
[Smiles]?” (Video Diary: Kendra 8.276-8.277).
Back at the house Kendra asks Kate, “Miss Piggy right Kate?” Kate says,
“Yah, right, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t the one that called Lexie that.” Kendra
yells, “The bitch was yelling it out at the corner of the street. Kate, who was it
then?” Lexie is also yelling “I’m Miss Piggy?” Kendra continues to yell at
Kate, “Natalie’s on Annie, I’m on your ass bitch, who said Miss Piggy? Who
did it?” Kate just sits on the floor with her head against the wall and her eyes
closed (Field Note 8.278-8.282).
The women’s willingness towards aggression and verbal attacks stems from a
general lack of fear. There is a belief that women do not traditionally conduct such
45
behavior out of fear of the response or how they will be perceived. The participants
on this show do not show any concern for those matters and rarely submit to others.
Instead they stand their ground refusing to give in, which causes many altercations as
both sides refuse to surrender to a less dominant position. This lack of fear or
consequence relates heavily with masculine gendered performance. As traditionally
masculine traits would call for more of a dominant and fearless approach. As these
women often portrayed:
Portia responds, “I’m not scared of anything.” Kendra asks, “So what the
problem?” Portia says, “This is my bed, I’m taking this bed, if you have a
problem with it take it up with somebody else not me, ‘cause this bitch is
sleeping right here.” Natalie walks in asking “What happened?” They ignore
Natalie as Kendra and Portia continue to argue, Kendra says that Portia is the
only one who they have a problem with. Portia says, “I don’t give a fuck.”
Annie goes back to Portia’s newly claimed bed and tries to convince Portia
again to surrender the bed. Portia tells Annie to get her [Annie’s] shit and go
somewhere else (Field Note 1.418-1.439).
Neither Portia nor Kendra were willing to let the issue drop as they argued
their points; refusing to accept the others’ justification. A similar situation was seen
later in the season between Kate and Amber, as Amber refused to submit to Kate’s
confrontational questioning:
46
Kate walks away asking, “Kendra, what is your deal?” Kendra replies that
Kate is a fucking bitch, Amber smiles, Kate sees this and asks Amber why
she’s [Amber] smiling. Amber, who was lying down, gets up standing on her
bed and says to Kate, “You wanna know how I feel? You talk shit about
Kendra but then you’re the one who said if I was single I would be bringing
home a different guy and doing him every night [swivels her hips in a circle].”
Kendra begins laughing loudly, Amber continues as she gets off her bed and
walks towards Kate, “You [Kate] said you’re embarrassed to do the screaming
O but you can flip upside on the pole, how’d you learn that one?” Kate stands
there with her mouth open and says nothing… Amber continues to yell at
Kate and says, “I’m allowed to smile if I think that shit is funny. It’s funny to
me, I’m allowed to sit in my bed and laugh at you anytime I want. Ha ha Kate,
ha ha.” As she says this Amber walks back to her bed and lies down (Field
Note 8.335-8.346).
The aggressive, confrontational and lack of fear approach comes from a desire
for control and/or have dominance in the house. Even the emotions of negativity
towards others stems from the women’s desire for dominance. When they feel
challenged or overruled, the women resort to masculine performances of aggression:
arguments, confrontations, yelling, etc. There is also a refusal to back down or submit
to another, which is itself another masculine performance. These traditionally
masculine traits of dominance, with little to no fear involved, also lead the women to
47
show little concern for others feelings as the individuals often see themselves as their
only concern. This belief leads the women to often engage in more aggressive and
insensitive verbal attacks on others. The combination of lack of fear, a desire for
dominance, and self-centeredness often leads to personal attacks on those they felt
threatened by. For example, when Lexie upsets Kate, Kate takes advantage of the
situation to single out Lexie as different:
Lexie says to Paul, “So I heard something about 30 seconds?” Paul says,
“Really?” Kate says that Lexie is being “Rude” and disrespectful to someone
that Kate actually cares about and tells Lexie to “Shut the fuck up.”… Lexie is
sitting quiet as Kate continues to yell, Kate says “You [Lexie] need a reality
check like right the fuck now. You can’t just go around and walk up in this
house acting like your one of us, you’re not, you’re the eighth bitch, that’s
what you fucking are.” Lexie tries to lean forward and argue with Kate, but
Kate yells, “Sit your ass down bitch, sit your ass down” (Field Note 6.2036.209).
Kate, following masculine traits of self-interest and a desire for dominance
over Lexie, points out Lexie’s difference from the remainder of the group and holds
that against Lexie as a lesser qualification. Kate was feeling her dominance and as an
“original” member in the household and even she felt challenged by Lexie, Kate
exerted her dominance by ostracizing Lexie as unequal.
48
In a household filled with masculine performance practicing women
challenges to others dominance was frequent. Each participant wanted her own piece
of control in the house and when they believed they were being offended or
mistreated by another the women often jump to verbal attacks, physical threats or
expressions of anger towards the person they feel wronged them in order to vouch
and maintain for their claim of control:
Flo, Amber, Kate and Paul are in the limo and Flo is telling them how she
tried to look out for Kendra but she [Kendra] didn’t listen. When Kendra gets
into the limo, Flo says, “Bitch I was looking out for you. You want to act like
a slut then go ahead let every guy and every girl in this world look at you like
a skank ass whore. I was 22, I’ve never done no shit like that in my life.”
Kendra does not say anything at first, the limo pulls away and then Flo
continues, “I aint no stupid trashy bitch like you hoes [she slaps the window in
the limo].” Kendra now is kneeling on the floor of the limo looking at Flo and
Kendra says, “You want to fight me right now?” Flo says, “All we do is stick
up for you in this house, all I do I stick up for you, I try to look out for you…
and you told me to go fuck myself.” Kendra yells back that she [Kendra] did
not say that. Flo continues to yell at Kendra telling her [Kendra] to act like a
slut. Kendra yells, “Fuck you Flo, fuck you, you fucking flip flopper.” The
two continue to yell over people as they are on opposite ends of the limo; Flo
grabs the black light and smashes it into the side of limo breaking it. Paul and
49
the other roommates try to calm Flo down and get her and Kendra to sit down.
Flo calls Kendra a “dumb bitch”…. Back in the house Flo is still upset about
her argument with Kendra and yells, “This aint the whore club, this is The
Bad Girls Club, not the prostitute on 22nd club. Bitch. Whores. Wanna act
like little sluts, No baby.” Flo walks downstairs into the kitchen (Field Note
6.252-6.294).
As the season progressed, the positions of ultimate control in the house were
in constant shift, as the roommates refused to take a subservient role to one another
and all continued their desire and actions for dominance. A few verbal confrontations
lead to physical fighting in which one roommate physically harmed another. This
type of behavior is traditionally exclusive to masculine performance. Physical
violence is the ultimate form of aggression, and as femininity does not usually consist
of face-to-face aggression, the idea of taking this aggression to the next level and
becoming physical further categorizes these women as “Bad”.
Portia opens the front door to find Natalie and Kendra sitting on the steps of
the porch. Portia says, “Where are you, you fucking stupid bitch, you wanna
bring my daughter up in this bitch huh?” As she says this she walks straight
up to Natalie and pushes her [Natalie] in the face, grabbing at her [Natalie]
hair. Natalie reaches up and grabs at Portia. Portia beings swinging and
throwing punches onto Natalie’s head. Natalie who is sitting down pulls Portia
to the ground and Portia rolls onto her [Portia] back. Kendra is yelling,
50
“Natalie, Portia stop it.” Once Portia is on the ground Natalie being punching
at Portia but the two fall back onto the ground. The two women are clinging
onto another’s hair and trying to punch the other at the same time. The
production crew steps in and tries to pull them apart. The crew is saying
“stop” and they have to physically pick up both women to pull them away
from one another to end the fight (Field Note 4.371-4.379).
The reasons which lead to physical violence are the same as those which lead
to the verbal attacks, a disagreement or belief in offense by another person. Yet, the
attacker feels at some point that verbal methods are not accomplishing their goals of
dominance, through masculine practices, the attacker must take an even more extreme
approach; physical violence, in order to reclaim and/or maintain their dominance in
the house. The idea of reaching this level of aggression is unheard of in traditional
feminine behavior, as physical aggressive performances are exclusively masculine
traits. These levels of expressed anger would categorize the women as extremely
unfeminine by traditional standards:
Amber takes off her jackets and throws it on the ground. She yells at Flo, “Hit
me. I was already dead you, you stupid bitch, I don’t give a flying fuck.” Flo
yells back, “I’m going to beat the fucking shit out of you.” Amber goes over
to Flo and says, “Hit me right now” and Flo continues to repeat, “Your dead
bitch”…. Flo is still standing in the pool complaining about her ankle and
Amber is pacing around her saying, “You are nothing.” Flo exits the pool and
51
walks over to Amber who is sitting on the poolside couch. Amber says, “Hit
me them.” Flo wobbles up to her and says, “Do you know who the fuck I am,
bitch?” and grabs Amber by the hair, Annie and Lexie try to get in the middle
and break them up but they cannot. Flo pulls Amber off the couch by her
[Amber] hair and flings her [Amber] across the patio, Amber goes rolling on
her back…. After throwing Amber onto the patio floor, Flo goes up to Amber
but Amber kicks her [Flo] away then Lexie and Annie jump in between them
(Field Note 7.265-7.280).
Feeling challenged by Flo, Amber refuses to back down. Flo feeling similarly
by Amber then takes their altercation to a physical level as a display of dominance
over Amber. When both women felt their original attempts of verbal attacks no longer
satisfied their desire for control; their aggression escalated to a physical level. This
escalation was present in many other women as well. As the season continued, the
women seemed to be less content with verbal attacks, because both women involved
almost always refused to surrender to the other meaning there was a lingering desire
for dominance. This desire seemed to strengthen throughout the season, which was
the cause of two of largest physical altercation that took place during the last few
episodes:
Kendra and Natalie continue to yell and argue over almost getting arrested and
who got the ticket. Kendra says Natalie can pay it in the mail, Natalie protests
that she [Natalie] can’t. Suddenly Kendra pushes Natalie back, and Natalie
52
comes forwards towards Kendra. Kendra holds her [Natalie] back saying,
“We’re not gunna fight.” Natalie pushes Kendra backwards saying, “No,
you’re not gunna do that.” Then Kendra falls backwards and Natalie lands
right on top of her [Kendra], as Natalie is still yelling, “I got the ticket.”
Natalie stands up and tries to grab at Kendra who is still on the ground in
some bushes. Kendra begins to kick at Natalie, and then Natalie gets back on
the ground as the two women grab at one another hair and start swinging
punches. Amber and Lexie come over to try to pull them a part; they grab
Natalie and tell her [Natalie] to get off Kendra, as Natalie is on top. Natalie
says, “No, get off Amber” and pulls a chunks of Lexie’s hair in the process.
Natalie suddenly turns and grabs Amber by the hair, letting go of both Lexie
and Kendra who are able to get up and move away from the scuffle. Amber is
yelling to Natalie, “I’m trying to help you, get off my hair.” The production
crew comes over to pull Amber and Natalie apart, who both have one another
by the hair, when the crew lifts the two off the ground they begin to kick at
one another and try to punch the other one, yelling “Bitch” and “Fuck you.”
The crew finally gets them apart and Natalie yells, “No! Let me go, let me at
Amber” (Field Note 11.452-11.465).
The most violent and physical altercations took place in the end of the season
because the women were in a constant battle with one another for control. In the
beginning expressions of verbal attacks sustained their attempts, but as the season
53
continued the women needed more extreme methods to win their battle for
dominance. Therefore their performances of aggression had to be increased to
physical violence. Any level of physical expressions of anger or frustration falls
dominantly in the sphere of masculinity; these women are displayed the strongest
behaviors of anti-femininity towards the end of the season:
Amber comes out to the porch and approaches Kate asking, “So you just
smack Annie? Why? For what purpose?” Kate says to Amber, “Because I was
supposed to smack you but she got in the way.” Amber says, “So smack me”
but Kate says “No.” Amber says Kate hit Annie because Kate knew Annie
would not hit her [Kate] back but Kate knows Amber will hit her [Kate] back.
Kate walks closer to Amber and says “I’m sorry” and swings her arm towards
Ambers faces. Almost instantly Amber swings her [Amber] arms back and
grabs a hold of Kate’s hair. Lexie joins in and also grabs onto Kate’s hair,
Amber M comes running out from the house and is yelling, “girls, girls, girls,
stop!” Amber M is trying to split the three apart as the scuffle begins to spread
into the driveway (Field Note 12.408-12.415).
The level of aggression and anger expressed by the women on this show
would definitely place them outside of traditional feminine behavior. They expressed
little fear in other’s reaction or in other’s perception of them as they regularly
verbally and physically attacked one another throughout the season. Their gendered
performance in response to a desire for control often lead to very masculine
54
performances, which caused some roommates to leave the house for breaking rules
against physical violence. These types of situations occurred often throughout the
season in attempts to gain or maintain control and dominance in the house. As the
season progressed, the levels of physical violence escalated due to the continued
masculine performances and the desire to maintain control over another expressing
similar performances of masculinity and refusing to submit. The roommates often
showed little control over their aggressive expressions of anger and many times
throughout the season properly categorized themselves as “Bad” at being “Girls”.
Although the desire for control and dominance in the house remains a
common theme throughout the season, how the women seek this goal changes. As we
have discussed thus far, often the women expressed this desire through extremely
masculine and aggressive approaches: confrontations and verbal and physical
violence against one another. Yet, the women did not always turn to these methods,
and, as we will discuss in the next section often made use of very traditional feminine
performances and expressions of anger. The women were not exclusively “Bad Girls”
often they expressed themselves by very traditional feminine standards. Even when
observing the same emotions: anger, offense, or dislike and desire for control and
dominance. Not all their reactions would be described as a masculine aggressive
classification, many times in the season the women portrayed much more traditional
feminine approaches.
55
“Good Girls”
The women of “Bad Girls Club” did not always commit to being “Bad” in the
understanding that their actions are going against feminine standards. Throughout the
season, all of the women partook in very traditional feminine reactions to anger.
Although their wording or belief in their own action may not follow a traditional role
of femininity, their actions could be defined from a feminine standpoint. Therefore,
the women could be labeled as “Bad” in that they engage in non-traditional feminine
behaviors, such as physical violence, but their every actions or behavior on the show
in total could not reach a conclusion as being solely “Bad”. Instead the women often
portrayed very traditional feminine behaviors which could label them, at times, as
being “Good” at being feminine, or female.
Following very traditionally feminine performance protocol, the women often
made decision or based their actions as a way to avoid confrontation with a fellow
roommate. These actions follow a more feminine standard of behavior as traditionally
women are more likely to avoid conflict than men. Therefore in an effort to still
accomplish their wish and avoid angering or upsetting another, the women would
intentionally be dishonest. For example, when Kendra and Natalie wanted to go to a
club, they plotted in the video diary room to leave Flo at home (Video Diary: Natalie
and Kendra 9.214-9.218) then Natalie created a lie, informing Flo that there was a
restriction out of Natalie’s control meaning Flo could not join them at the club (Field
Note 9.237-9.242). In conducting these more feminine gender performances, the
56
women were able to avoid angering someone while still being able to accomplish
their own goal. This traditionally feminine behavior is a less aggressive method of
getting what is wanted without causing a scene or upsetting another person.
Another form of a very non-confrontational method was teasing or taunting
someone behind their back. This concept of expressing one’s aggression/dislike to
someone other than the individual who is the cause is considered extremely feminine,
as traditional feministic behavior would dictate that a person should not cause a scene
or confrontation by expressing her emotions. This method allows the individual to
express their feelings of dislike or anger towards another in a private way without
causing conflict and in most situations without the person in question even knowing.
Natalie asks what Lexie thinks of her [Portia’s] picture, Lexie says she thinks
Natalie is cuter. Natalie says “Thanks” with a smile, then as Lexie leaves
Natalie says to Kate “She’s [Lexie] really annoying I don’t like her” (Field
Note 5.256-5.258).
Lexie, as the newest member of the household, fell victim to this type of
passive aggressive teasing throughout her time on the show. Natalie, being most
commonly the initiator of this action:
Kendra and Natalie are in a bedroom. Natalie says she [Lexie] has an ugly
face and looks like a piglet “Oink oink” (Field Note 5.283-5.284).
Natalie and Kate are in the same bed under the blankets and Natalie says,
“Miss piggy’s up.” Natalie laughs and Kate whispers, “Listen, listen. She’s
57
[Lexie] like, ‘I just ate ranch for like 30 minutes” [Flashes to Lexie eating
chips in her bed] (Field Note 8.94-8.96).
This expression of dislike, anger, or objection is almost always expressed
behind the individual’s back, which is considered a very traditional feminine action.
Women are often expected to not cause an incident or be considered confrontational
in any manner. In a way to avoid these labels often times women must express their
emotions in private. Yet, because this is reality television we, as viewers, see these
private moments either in the video diary room or with other roommates. By
indirectly attacking, teasing, or taunting a person, the woman can express her
emotions without facing a reaction of conflict or harm by the individual she is
attacking. Often times the woman would wait to express her emotions until the
individual who caused them was actually no longer in the house:
All the rest of the girls are in the video diary room saying, “We run LA now!”
Annie says she has a personal message, “Natalie come *** my ass bitch.” The
girls scream in excitement and Flo gives her a high five. Then in a bedroom,
Flo asks Annie if she feels better now, and Annie says, “The person who
picked on me is gone.” Flo hugs her. Next, Annie is seen jumping on a bed
saying “Yay!” (Personal Video Diary: Multiple Roommates 2.454-2.457).
Annie expressed her feelings towards Natalie only once Natalie had left the
house. Even the encouragement coming from the other roommates was not expressed
58
when Natalie was in the household. In a similar situation Amber expresses her true
feeling towards another roommate once the roommate had left:
Amber is standing right on the edge of the hot tub in order to reenact her
conflict with Flo, and Natalie and Kendra are holding Flo’s portrait saying,
“What are you gunna do?” Amber says, “I’m gunna push you in the pool” and
extends her [Amber] arms, as she does Flo’s portrait falls into the pool and all
three roommates cheer. Rich asks, “Soooo, you’re gunna leave her in the
pool?” Amber, standing over Flo’s portrait in the pool, responds, “Yah, I’m
gunna leave her in the pool, she said she was gunna drown me. Symbolically
she’s drowning in the pool.” Rich laughs and the two of them walk away
(Field Note 11.42-11.47).
Amber is able to show her dislike of Flo without risk of repercussions from
Flo herself because Flo has left the house. As the ultimate way to avoid conflict, some
roommates chose to wait until an individual had actually left the house before
expressing their true feeling towards them. These actions would be considered
extremely passive as the women openly express their emotions with no fear of
causing a scene because the other individual was no longer present. The women wait
until a safe time, meaning the attacker is no longer around, before expressing
aggression towards them.
As discussed in the previous section, there was a constant struggle in the
household for control and dominance between the roommates, but these feelings did
59
not always lead the women to masculine aggressive performances. Even when the
goal was to upset or anger someone present, the women still made use of traditionally
passive aggressive methods. As a way to express their anger towards another, the
initiator often would do something that challenged the other without actually causing
physical harm or being overly aggressive:
Kate is sitting on her bed and says, “It’s about to go off right now, I just threw
all of Natalie’s shit out the window. Yah I just threw all her shit out the
window.” Lexie begins to laugh quietly.
VD: Kate “Natalie loves her make-up, to put on a fake phony mask every day
because the real her is so ugly inside and out, so I threw it out the window
because I knew it was the most important thing to her. I don’t give a fuck,
sorry” (Field Note 6.320-6.324).
There is no regret, as the purpose was to cause harm, annoyance, or anger the
other in some way. Yet, the actions are passive aggressive as the initiator does not
confront the individual with her feelings but makes her feeling regarding the other
person known:
Natalie says, “Stupid bitch” and walks up to Kate’s room. Natalie says, “This
bitch is going to have to live with it every day, this bitch is jealous” and
begins to write in red marker “Jealous” over Kate’s bed. One of the other
roommates is heard saying “don’t” but Natalie ignores it. Both Kendra and
Lexie are shown looking shocked at what Natalie is doing. Natalie then writes
60
“jealous bitch” multiple times all over Kate’s white nightstand in the same red
ink (Field Note 7.22-7.26).
Unlike masculine aggressive approaches, the women often chose to passively
express their anger. The actions taken do not directly harm the individuals, but they
do serve as challenges and as a refusal to submit. These passive aggressive actions
follow a much more traditional feministic performance expectation; as feminine
protocol would dictate it to be inappropriate for face-to-face confrontations to occur.
The women avoid this by conducting passive challenges that fully express their
feelings towards the other but in a non-aggressive manor.
Further aggressive passivity was used in the household during the season
through other methods as well. For example, when a roommate was disliked or
unpopular in the house, in almost every situation there was a group consensus or team
unity by others in the house against the single outlying person. By having the support
of others, one person’s dislike of another was validated or strengthened by those
teaming up with them. This allowed the person who initiated the dislike to hide
behind, and be included in, the validation of the group. The initiator could then
openly display their dislike towards another person in a passive aggressive manner, as
she was not the only one doing so, she could not be singled out as a sole attacker.
Therefore the feelings of dislike are almost justified through the groups’ approval,
allowing further actions to take place because of it:
61
“I was Florina’s last friend in the house. Sweetie, it’s over, everyone’s gunna
be on my team and we’re all against you” (Video Diary: Natalie 9.324-9.325).
“I finally got the girls on the same page, Florina, you got to go [points her
finger]” (Video Diary: Natalie 10.403).
Florina is the first in the house to experience this, as she begins to become less
liked by Natalie the others increase their dislike as well and often refer to themselves
as a “Team” against her. Besides Florina, Kate endears a similar situation of being
ostracized by a group of others:
In the limo, Kendra is encouraging Amber to not “loose a second of energy,
don’t lose a second of sleep worrying about why she [Kate] disappointed
you.” As all the other women in the limo are talking. Kate sits left out of the
conversation (Field Note 12.375-12.377).
“I can see Kate breaking down and I love it. Everyone is on my side and
turning against her and tormenting her even more. Her days here are totally
numbered” (Video Diary: Annie 12.378-12.379).
As women, traditional feminine standards would dictate that they are not
allowed to openly express their feelings of dislike towards another person; by doing
so women can face negative back lash such as being labeled a “bitch”. Therefore by
creating a common consensus in the house, or with a group of other roommates, the
women validate their feelings. It is the assumption that is it acceptable to not like
another and treat the other poorly because the group or majority agrees that the
62
individual is disliked. It was a method used by the entire female household as a way
to maneuver around traditional feminine restrictions on their feelings of dislike. If the
majority of the household agrees with the initiator, than there is no one who can judge
the initiator’s actions as unfeminine or unacceptable because the others’ actions are in
agreement.
The roommates commonly used a team like force against their victim, who
was also almost always solo in their defense. During these attacks the women did not
always turn to physical violence, which would categorize them as masculine
performances, as masculine team-like aggression is usually physically aggressive.
Instead, they often made use of mental trickery, exclusion, or torment by turning
others against the individual, or mentally tormenting the individual as a way to force
the victim out. The women could not turn to physical aggression they made use of
these relational passive aggressive methods as way to accomplish their goal. Most
often these plots were expressed in the private video diary rooms:
“Kate you’re on my fucking list. Welcome to the bad girls house, were
Kendra is on your ass. And I’ll make sure that your life is mother fucking
miserable” (Video Diary: Kendra 8.355-8.386).
Similar feelings of aggression towards Kate were expressed by Amber in private:
“I want Kate to yell at me, I want Kate to yell at me because I’m gunna push
her to point that she goes home” (Video Diary: Amber 12.373-12.374).
63
In doing this, the women are confrontational in a feminine manner. Instead of
physically or verbally attacking the individual they decide to use relational aggression
in order to achieve their goal, which is usually for the other person to leave the house.
They control their anger, by not allowing it to lead to physical violence and instead
use more traditional feminine behaviors including, exclusion, emotional pressure, and
other non-physical methods. Yet, they express these plans in private in order to not be
faced with negative back lash for these goals. Although each roommate partook in
these actions at different times, there were a few roommates who made use of passive
aggressive actions more than others, but no one partook in this action or behavioral
type more than Annie:
Amber and Annie are in the kitchen looking for protein powder, Annie pours
a white powder into it and Amber suggests sugar too.
VD Annie: “We’ve decided to mess with Kate’s protein shakes, so we put salt
in it first, to make her bloat, and then we decided to put a whole bunch of
sugar in it. So she’ll get really fat whenever she drinks a protein shake.”
Annie and Amber pour a large amount of sugar into the protein powder, shake
it up and put in back in the self just the way it was when they found it. Annie
says, “And we make Kate fat.” Annie and Amber walk out of the kitchen
laughing (Field Note 9.124-9.131).
Annie’s actions allowed her to express her emotions towards Kate without
actually having to be seen as aggressive, which allows her to maintain a traditional
64
feminine appropriate role. Annie’s personality and character often left her ostracized
and distant from the other roommates, as she tended to make use of more traditional
feminine actions, behaviors, and roles much more often than any other participant.
Annie is worth exploring as she fulfilled a role which contradicts the title of the show.
Annie
The women of “The Bad Girls Club” portrayed actions that would both
support the assumption given by the title of the show, that they are “Bad” at being
“Girls”, as well as discredit it; for many of their behaviors followed closely with
traditional feminine standards. In sum of the women’s
actions/behaviors/performances one character stands out distinctively as always
landing on the more feminine side of the spectrum: Annie. Throughout the season
Annie seemed to serve as juxtaposition for the other roommates. Out of all the
roommates Annie most closely followed a more traditional approach to gendered
behavior than any other participant. Annie would definitely qualify as the least
aggressive in the house and at times served as an outlet for the other roommates to
express their aggression, anger, or dominance in the house. From the beginning of the
season Annie was openly against expressions of aggression or anger:
“Florina very much has a right to be upset but she doesn’t have a right to be
knocking picture form the wall and screaming and calling everybody names. I
just wish that everybody could keep their emotions in check” (Video Diary:
Annie 3.294-3.296).
65
One of Annie’s largest complaints regarding the others was their aggression
and physical violence which she was strongly against:
“I have no urge to fight, when I get frustrated I turn to my trusted friend;
Potatoes chips” (Personal Video Diary: Annie 5.143).
Annie uniquely found herself the only roommates to not aggressively engage
in conflict for control or dominance in the house. While the other women felt
compelled to turn to verbal and physical attacks on one another (including Annie at
times), Annie disliked this method of expression so much that often when violence
erupted in the house she would attempt to separate herself from it as much as
possible. For example when conflict or violence would erupt in the house, Annie
would often times be seen exiting the area:
Annie is seen coming out from around the corner and going out the front door
and shuts it behind her. [VD: Annie]: “The house is just irrupting in complete
and utter chaos and I really don’t want to be involved so I’m just going to go
far away and hide” (Field Note 6.343-6.346).
Unaccustomed to the level of aggression by the other roommates Annie
physically removes herself from the house when the aggression is too much for her to
bear. Annie followed a traditional feministic belief that one’s emotions or feeling
should never escalate into causing a public altercation in any way, and most
especially not violently. Annie abided by emotional control and avoided angering
66
others or, which allowed her to also avoid characteristically masculine forms of
aggression by all means.
Although never one to cause a physical altercation, Annie did throughout the
season express dislike or anger towards other roommates. Yet her performances
related to these emotions were expressed exclusively through passive aggressive
means, which makes her unique in this point alone. At one time or another all of the
other roommates partook in some form of physical or verbal attack on another. Annie
remained the exclusion and never used these aggressive forms. Instead, when
expressing her emotions Annie always resorted to passive aggressive methods:
Annie is in the kitchen and is shown cutting a chunk of butter and
microwaving it into liquid then pours it into a carton of egg whites. And
shakes up the cartons and puts them back in the refrigerator.
VD: Annie: “ Kate likes to make fun of me because she knows as mad as I’m
ever gunna get, I’m never gunna hit her but just cuz I’m not gunna hit her
doesn’t mean I won’t do other things to her. So I’ve decided to melt butter and
put it in Kate’s egg whites. Watch out bitch” (Field Note 9.2-9.6).
Even though Annie maintained strong feels of dislike towards Kate she
remains true to her traditionally feministic performance and chose to seek her revenge
and anger towards Kate passively. As discussed in the previous section, using these
methods allows Annie to express her emotions without concern of causing a
67
confrontation because it is done in private. Annie takes her vengeance a step further
by using information she has learned about Kate to her advantage:
Annie is upstairs emptying two bottles of hair spray by just holding the lids
down nonstop. Then places the spray can back in the drawer.
VD: Annie: “Kate actually had her mom send her more of her hair spray, so
I’m just spraying even though it’s bad for the ozone layer. Kate is as dumb as
a box of rocks and trashy” (Field Note 12.101-12.104).
Compared to the other roommates, Annie did not hold a desire for control and
dominance in the house and when she did harbor ill feelings towards someone she
expressed her emotions in very passive aggressive ways. Annie refused to partake in
the struggle for control in the house, instead willingly taking a weaker role, and
remaining true to traditionally feminine characteristics and performance. She thought
very poorly of the aggressive and violent tendencies of the other roommates, which
marginalized her while in the house.
Other feministic tendencies of Annie often made her very unique in the house,
for example, throughout the season Annie made comments on individual’s use of
grammar and correct spelling. This behavior further categorized Annie as someone
who is very aware of how others view her and considerate of others opinions of her,
an attribute much more prevalent in feminine standards. She used this focus on
grammar as a way to separate herself from others she disliked, yet still in her passive
aggressive, non-confrontational way:
68
Annie and Rich are sitting downstairs and Annie says, “Yay, Flo is gone.”
Rich says the only reason they all wanted her [Flo] gone is because they [The
roommates] were scared of her [Flo]. Annie says, “No I wanted her gone
because she burps and uses improper grammar and she’s crass and rude.” Rich
responds asking, “Improper grammar? Are you serious?” Annie says that is
the main reason (Field Note 11.15-11.18).
With roommates coming from different areas around the country it is
understandable that each individual may have different dialects, slang and general
pronunciations of words. Language and grammar usage did not seem to be even a
slight issue to anyone else in the house except for Annie. Quite often, Annie brought
up this issue, never in a confrontational way, as Annie followed more traditional
feministic roles and only made her comments to others or after the individual was out
of hearing distance, thus abiding by traditional feminine passive aggressive standards.
Annie continued to differ from the other roommates in other topics such as sexual
encounters with others as well:
Annie says she is fine with nakedness because it’s natural. Kendra walks in
and says, “Sex is natural too.” But Annie disagrees and says it should be done
in private, and says no one has to agree with her [Annie] but it’s how she feels
(Field Note 6.147-6.149).
69
Annie used her difference in opinion on sexuality to separate herself from
others, just as she did with her focus on grammar. Annie had much more conservative
beliefs on expressions of sexuality and sexual practices:
Amber asks, “Haven’t you had sex before?” Annie answers, “Not on the first
date.” Kendra comments that it’s not Natalie and Rodrick’s first date, it is
their second. Annie says, “Not with the lights on and the door open with six
girls running around” (Field Note 9.180-9.182).
The difference between Annie and the other roommates on acceptable sexual
behavior seemed to cause the largest divide between Annie and the others. The other
women all practiced many more adventurous sexual encounters and were much more
accepting of others doing so as well. Annie’s feelings on sexual relationships
followed a more traditional feminine role. Annie was the only roommates to not
partake in a sexual relationship of some manner with someone while living in the
house.
Inevitably, Annie’s differences in beliefs and practices caused a major divide
between herself and her fellow roommates. She verbally put down their masculine
and aggressive actions both publicly and privately and maintained her dedication to
feminine characteristics throughout the season. Annie’s actions, beliefs and behaviors
often lead her to be a marginalized victim of others attacks:
Annie is driving and Natalie attempts to teach Annie how to “ride like a
chulo.” Annie lowers the seat but has an uncomfortable look. Both women
70
laugh. Natalie says Annie has to practice on how to hold the steering wheel
and pretends she [Natalie] is driving with one hand as an example. Annie
says, “Ten and two baby. Ten and two.” Natalie responds, “Fuck ten and two
Annie” and continues to try to get Annie to drive like she [Natalie] is. Annie
does and yells “Oh my God.” Natalie says she wants Annie to “feel the
moment and go with the flow” because Annie is “real uptight and so…
mmmm…. Ten and two ten and two” in a condescending voice than laughs.
Annie sits quietly; visibly unhappy (Field Note 2.91-2.96).
All of the other members of the household recognized Annie’s difference in
gendered practices and often pointed them out, using Annie as an outlet for their
aggressive methods. Annie’s differences even cause her Bad Girl status to be put into
question by some because Annie did not express her emotions in masculine forms as
the other did.
VD: Kate: “Here comes Annie with her gloves on and her sponge. Yelling at
everyone in the house. She’s Miss tidy. She’s Miss librarian. Stop being a
mom start being a bad girl” (Video Diary: Kate 2.151-2.152).
Annie was often the victim of others anger, and because the others practiced
more “bad” girl qualities, i.e. masculine expressions of anger, Annie was often the
recipient:
Kate grabs the jugs full of juice and pours two of them over Annie’s head.
Annie protests at first but then just stands there and lets it happen and even
71
dances once Kate runs out. Kate turns around and dances with Trish again.
Amber who is sitting in the booth laughs as she gives Annie a drink from her
cup and Annie continues dancing (Field Note 8.421-8.424).
While another roommates reaction to this may have led to a physical
confrontation, Annie who completely rejects such masculine expressions, instead
resorted to ignoring Kate’s harassment. Even in situations when Annie could have
confronted Kate to express her anger towards Kate, Annie abides by traditional
feminine protocol and dismissed her feeling and emotions so as not to cause an
altercation with Kate. For example, when Kate caused Annie to cry by flirting with a
man Annie was interested in, Annie refused to discuss it because she was so angry.
By doing this Annie avoids an argument and puts her emotions aside to save face. In
similar situations it is safe to assume any other participant in the house would have
chosen a much more aggressive reaction towards Kate. Annie, instead, chose to avoid
the issue and publicly dismiss Kate and her emotions (Field Note 12.80-12.94).
Even when Annie was picked on, singled out, and made to endure others
offense she never resorted to physical or verbal violence. It was almost as if, Annie’s
purpose was to serve as the complete opposite of the rest of the house. Annie was
often the only “good” girl in a house full of “bad” girls, in the sense that Annie abided
by a very traditional feminine role throughout her time in the house almost
unquestionably. Annie never faltered from her belief and practice in traditionally
feminine performances, but because of this she often found herself as an outlet for
72
others expressions of aggression. Annie’s actions and behaviors throughout the
season caused certain roommates to question her purpose on the show as she differed
so drastically from every other participant. She was often the victim of harassment
and teasing, yet never strayed from her traditional beliefs in feminine practices and
behaviors which included anti-violence, passive aggressive anger tactics, conservative
ideals on sexual relationships, and a focus on others opinions of intelligence and
femininity. Annie served as a quintessential example of the perfect traditionally
feminine role, which seems to differ completely than the focus of the show, which is
woman being “Bad”. Yet, perhaps by having Annie on the show as the “Good Girl”,
the “Bad” behavior of the other women was more pronounced, as Annie served as a
counter role to everyone else. Annie’s presence allowed other women to express
dominance, aggression, and at times violence which exemplified the title of the show.
Annie was not always the recipient of these expressions but her behaviors portrayed a
counter option for an expression of these emotions, and further emphasized the “Bad”
in the other women.
Acceptable Sexuality
As can be seen thus far, the women of “The Bad Girls Club” display both
masculine and feminine characteristics and behaviors. This co-gendered expression
can be found in the women’s sexuality as well, throughout the season the “Bad Girls”
were good at being girls at times, while still maintaining their “Bad” status at other
times. For example, sexual aggressiveness is a trait strongly associated by masculine
73
characteristics. Throughout the season different roommates expressed differing levels
of sexuality and sexual aggressiveness, yet their expression seemed to almost go
hand-in-hand with their general aggressiveness. For example, Natalie, as one of the
most aggressive women in the house, also practiced very dominant and in-charge
flirtation with men throughout the season:
They walk into the club and Natalie starts immediately dancing on this man,
she walks away and says to Annie “You want him?” Natalie laughs and pulls
Annie in another direction (Field Note 1.310-1.312).
On multiple occasions Natalie initiated physical contact with the person she was
interested in:
Natalie points to the same gentleman Annie was talking to earlier, gives him
an innocent looks and indicates for him to come over. He points at himself in
question, and then walks over to her. She [Natalie] comes in close to him and
begins whispering into his ear and holding his hand and dancing with him
(Field Note 2.217-2.219).
Sexual aggression, just as standard aggression, is traditionally trademarks of
masculine characteristics. Males are categorized as more of the hunter, on the prowl
looking for a partner. While, in comparison women are considered the prey; the
individuals the men are after. Yet the women of this show often flip this traditional
script and take it upon themselves to pursue someone they are interested in or are
attracted to:
74
There is a knock at the door and Annie opens it to find a man there to water
their plants. Flo walks up, shakes his hand and suggest he does the work with
his shirt off, Flo says, “I don’t like shirts.” Annie says they should show the
man the plants inside too. Flo grabs the man’s shirt and lifts it to expose his
abdomen, the two girls shriek and one says, “Oh my God.” Annie takes the
man into the house pointing out plants throughout; Flo says, “I told you if
you’re watering plants you cannot wear your shirt.” Flo continues to ask the
man to take his shirt off, he finally lifts it to expose his abdomen again, this
time Flo rubs her hands on his abs and Annie touches them as well. Flo says,
“Oh my God” and he says, “Thank you very much” and gives Annie a high
five. The man continues to follow Annie and Flo walks behind him pretending
to squeeze his buttocks. He begins watering plants and Flo decides to sit down
and watch him do his job.[VD: Flo]: “If there’s one thing that I love it’s eye
candy. If he’s hot, I wanna stare at him.”
FN: The man finally takes his shirt completely off and Flo spills her drink as
she watches him. Flo says, “Oh my God, I love my life.” Flo walks up the
man telling him that he is the most beautiful thing in LA that she has seen so
far and shares a hug with the man as she does so she says, “Oh you’re warm”
and follows him outside. He continues to water plants and Flo continues to
watch saying a dying plant will be happier once he touches it. VD: Flo “I just
want to lick everything off of his body, he is so sexy” (Field Note 5.13-5.29).
75
Traditional femininity would dictate that women are to play a more modest
role in the pursuit of attraction. The women on the show usually ignored this
gendered standard. The Bad Girls followed a more masculine approach to sexual
attraction and thusly did not follow the traditional subordinate role of femininity.
When it comes to sexual expression the women displayed strong characteristics;
initiating and acting on their sexual interests. Their masculine traits were even further
displayed through their discussions and openness regarding sex. The women can be
seen as very forward and assertive about sex in public:
The roommates are shown walking around Venice Beach, playing in the sand
and water and shopping. Natalie walks up to a male street vender dressed with
a claw necklace and wearing a Speedo and says, “I just wanna ask you how
big your penis is?” He laughs. She says she “loves his outfit” and tells him he
looks like a Rockstar and that his penis looks very large. All the roommates
are shown walking along Venice Beach boardwalk laughing and talking to
men (Field Note 4.25-4.29).
The concept of openness towards sex and a desire for sex is most commonly
held in the masculine sphere. For women, are traditionally expected to appear to be
available for sex but not be forceful or overly desiring sex. As the prey, traditional
femininity would dictate not only that men initiate sexual interaction but are also the
ones who desire it. Yet, the Bad Girls very often throughout the season expressed
their open and strong interest in sex:
76
“I’m probably the horniest bad girl in the house. I like to have sex; I’m not
going to lie and I just need to have somebody to have sex with” (Video Diary:
Kendra 2.202-2.203).
The women even defend their actions in the house based on their need and lack of
sex:
Natalie and Kendra are discussing how sexually frustrated they are. Natalie
says, “Seven girls cooped up in a house ready to fucking explode on each
other” (Field Note 2.344-2.353).
Society most commonly categorizes men as the ones with high sex drives.
For a man, sex is traditionally seen more as a need which must be fulfilled or else
expressions of frustrations may result. Yet, the women in “The Bad Girls Club” relate
these sexual needs to themselves as well and even excuse their hostile
communications with one another due to a lack of sex. As a solution to this desire, the
women are often openly sexually explicit in discussing their use of masturbation and
sex toys:
Flo says there is a lot of sexual frustration in the house, like Kendra yelling
she [Kendra] is horny, but she admits that she [Flo] has “taken care of herself
a few times so I’m good” (Video Diary: Flo 2.345).
They even encourage one another in hopes that by satisfying this desire the
house will be more peaceful:
77
Flo says that they are all horny and left guys at home who they use to have sex
with and now are in a house with “no penises” and that’s why they are going
crazy. She tells them to masturbate. Kendra laughs. She [Flo] offers her
assistance to Natalie if she [Natalie] needs it (Field Note 2.327-2.329).
In sum, the masculine trait of strong sexual desire was very acceptable and
almost generally understood in the house. The women’s strong sexual appetite and
aggressiveness, both publicly and privately, can be strongly categorized masculine
behaviors. In this respect the women did not follow traditional feminine protocol in
the slightest form, and instead aligned themselves with masculine dictations of sexual
expressions. Yet, even though the Bad Girls often took a more masculine approach to
sexual expression, they usually did so by abiding by certain societal pre-described
roles of sexuality for women. Concepts such as sexual physical attributes do align
with femininity and were followed closely by the group. For example, methods used
to attract men usually involved overt signs of sexual availability:
Lexie and Natalie are introduced on stage and they go up and begin dancing
and grinding on each other (Field Note: 5.373).
What are acceptable expressions of sexuality was not always agreed upon by
the entire household. Yet even Annie, the most modest of the roommates, engaged in
strong sexual activity to attract men:
A group of men arrive at the house and Annie lets them in, they are all friends
with Jeremy [Natalie’s friend] and the men and women introduce themselves.
78
Next Flo and Annie are in a bedroom with a man and Annie is dancing on the
stripper pole. He mentions money but Flo says, “We don’t need no money.”
Annie does not catch on at first but finally does and laughs (Field Note 4.177).
Throughout the season, the women spend much time and attention on their
physical appearance around men. Every episode contained at least one scene of the
women in the dressing room, doing their hair, make-up or choosing appropriate outfit
for their outing. It was obvious that appearance was a high priority to the women at
all times. Even though the women went against traditional feminine standards of
initiation and aggressiveness, they played a proper feminine role in abiding by sexual
standards of appearance and availability. Yet the levels of sexual expressions and
activity were not always agreed upon unanimously in the house. One of the largest
disagreements dealt with the idea of a roommate staying sexually faithful to her
boyfriend while in the Bad Girls house:
Kate and Amber are outside by the pool talking about Natalie. Kate says,
“Natalie is a bitch, I have a boyfriend and you will never see me cheat on
him.” Amber agrees. Kate says Natalie will be punished for cheating on
Olimade either here on the show or after. Kate says Gabe must be “some
cracked out shit” to want to sleep with Natalie (Field Note 5.418-5.426).
When entering the house at the beginning of the season, Natalie, Amber, Kate
and Portia were all in relationships. When Natalie began to express sexual interest in
other men, some of the other roommates immediately disapproved of her actions:
79
Natalie is talking to her friend Jeremy about why it’s good she is a hustler and
says “If some else brakes bread on me, I flip that ten times more.” The other
roommates notice Natalie’s attention to Jeremy as she [Natalie] begins to
dance and rub her body on him. VD: Amber: “Natalie is dancing around she
supposedly has a boyfriend and she looks like a big huge slut butt. If she
really cared about Olimade she wouldn’t do it” (Field Note 4.169-44.173).
Natalie’s attention towards this man violated the other roommates’ standards
of faithfulness towards Natalie’s boyfriend. The other roommates seemed to align
themselves more towards traditional feminine behavior which dictates a women’s role
in being honest to one partner at a time. Yet, Natalie followed a much more
masculine approach by attracting and engaging in sexual acts with multiple partners.
It is somewhat understandable that Natalie, being one of the more aggressive in the
house would follow a more masculine role in sexuality, but, the other large violator of
the traditional feminine role was Annie, in her confession of often having
relationships with married men:
VD Annie: “I’ve dates married men before, my last boyfriend was married the
whole time we were dating [shrugs shoulders].”
FN: Kendra says, “You’re a home wrecker” to Annie and Amber begins
questioning Annie about how she [Annie] would feel and if she [Annie] ever
wants to get married in the future. Amber says it’s ok “to have a crush, but to
80
be like he’s married but I don’t care I would fuck him still, I don’t know, I
think that weird” (Field Note 4.57-4.59).
The entire house was unsupportive of Annie’s previous relationships with
married men. The other roommates saw this as a complete offense on Annie’s behalf:
Flo, Amber, Kendra, Portia, Annie, and Kate all take a house vehicle to a
restaurant. Once there and sitting, Annie says she does not know married men
who wear wedding rings and that’s why she gets into trouble. Flo says a
person is married if they go home at a certain time. Annie says he [her exboyfriend who was married] didn’t do that. Amber asks Annie, “Don’t you
feel like your second to somebody else?” Annie says she had a problem with
that but that she “was already invested.” Annie said she justified the
relationship in her head by arguing that “his wife got pregnant and he had to
marry her, he didn’t want to.” Portia says, “Even if the home is broken that is
not your responsibility to go into that home and break up what they have.
That’s selfish. That’s so selfish.”
14: 06 VD Portia: “I like Annie. I just really don’t think she sees the big
picture. Like if he’s really married with two kids, like I wouldn’t do that it’s
just not right” (Field Note 4.134-4.147).
In this circumstance even the most sexually aggressive members of the
household did not support Annie in dating married men. As we discussed in the
previous section, Annie served as the quintessential feminine role in the house except
81
in this matter, or so it would appear. Annie admittedly broke the concept of
faithfulness by having relationships with married men, yet, a closer look at this
situation uncovers deeper reasoning. It could be argued that Annie, being the proper
feminine role model, was in fact following feminine protocol by making herself
available to men no matter the man’s circumstance. The facts of the man’s
relationship status fell inferior to the feminine ideal of availability. Also, Annie
remained true to her partner and therefore was staying true to a devoted relationship
(regardless of the man doing the same). Annie’s actions put the fault, and masculine
characteristics, on her partner, while she remained true to her feminine ideal of
availability and loyalty.
Annie’s actions were viewed with heavy disapproval by the other household
members. Although masculine standards would dictate a wide array of sexual
partners, the household (excluding Annie) did not consider married men an option. In
this situation the women abided by more a traditional feminine code, in that, a
married couple are to only engage in sex with one another. The women defended
monogamous relationships in this aspect. There were limits to the socially acceptable
behavior towards sexuality in the house and there was often disagreement.
Nonetheless there was a general acceptable standard of more aggressive forms of
sexual attraction then traditional femininity would dictate, although even this
depended on the relationship status of the women and man involved.
82
When viewing the sexual practices of the women on the show it is clear that
they practiced strong masculine behaviors: sexual assertiveness, confidence and
openness. Yet, while conducting these masculine actions the women also were
following very traditional feminine standards of societal beauty, attractiveness and
sexual availability. Going back to the original assumptions from the title that these
women are “Bad” at being “Girls”, could be supported by their vast displays of
masculine traits, yet, the women often displayed strong feminine characteristics as
well which would make them successful at being “Girls”. In the next chapter we will
discuss these dual gender characteristics and the meaning behind the messages being
transmitted through “The Bad Girls Club”.
Public Viewing
The two public viewings were held as an attempt to identify the engagement
the audience has with the messages that are being disseminated from “The Bad Girls
Club.” Almost all of the participants either never heard of the program or had never
seen an episode. The most pronounced reaction to “The Bad Girls Club” was the
shock value it produced in the audience. From the start of each episode the
participants were in awe of almost every aspect of the women on the show, from their
dress, to their language, to the aggression- the participants were immediately shocked
within the first few seconds of each episode. This initial shock seemed to continue
into undisturbed interest throughout the one-hour program. Even when discussion
would get side-tracked at the table (for example: when food arrived or there was a
83
commercial break) the show would quickly regain everyone’s attention and in little
time they were all refocused on the program
This reaction was seen in the participants as well as others in the restaurant. In
the first showing, the restaurant had “The Bad Girls Club” playing throughout the
dining area on about a dozen televisions. During the showing, on multiple occasions,
employees of the restaurant were seen stopping, sometimes in groups, to watch the
program. Other customers could be seen watching the television or gathering in the
lobby area to watch the show. The program was clearly grabbing people’s attention;
in fact, full tables of customers were seen neither talking to one another nor eating,
but starring at the screen. During the second viewing, the participants were placed in
a separate bar area with only two televisions. Yet, even with this smaller availability
of screens, employees and customers were drawn to the program and paused for a few
seconds to watch. During this occasion, it was even noticed that employees from the
kitchen were standing in view of the television to watch the program for small
amounts of time. The restaurant was designed so customers had to walk by the bar
area to get to the main dining and multiple people paused to watch the show on the
way to their table.
The attention grabbing nature of the show would indicate that the messages
being disseminated from the show are being communicated (i.e. distributed). As the
audience is watching a reality television, ideally representing the factual lives of
individuals, certain cultural messages exist, including those related to gender. The
84
fact the audience was interested from the beginning to the end of each episodes
ensures that messages are transmitted as the audience is not distracted and focus was
maintained. The acceptance of messages may vary, but the obvious and consistent
interest, at the very least, would indicate that cultural messages, including those
regarding gender are being translated through “The Bad Girls Club”. While, both of
the viewings were able to capture and maintain the participants, and others interests,
their reactions throughout the episodes varied.
The participants would often comment on the physical attractiveness of the
bad girls, “She could be really pretty like a model or something” or “I think that girl
is cute, she’s all matching and stuff”. When there was clear approval or positive
reaction it was related to the physical attractiveness or beauty of the Bad Girl. These
reactions display the acceptance of the Bad Girls by the audience, as well as the
general understanding and cooperation with the importance of the feminine standards
of attractiveness for women. The audience approved of the Bad Girls based on their
feminine expression of beauty and the audiences’ understanding of this. When it
came to the appearance of the Bad Girls the participants were generally in an
agreement of acceptance.
In a few instances the participants attempted to rationalize the Bad Girls’
behavior by comparing it to their own. For example, there were many negative
comments on how the Bad Girls chose minimal clothing options throughout the
episodes, one participant asked the table “Yah, but who doesn’t walk around their
85
own house in their underwear?” In response a few participants admitted to doing so.
There were a few instances where a certain outfit choice was complimented by the
participants or a participant admitted to having or wanting similar styles of clothing.
There were also a few gasps and reactions to the dirty status of the house the Bad
Girls lived in. After one comment about the dirty house another participant
mentioned that she had little room to complain because her own desk at work is just
as disorganized. Lastly, during one of the episodes the women of “The Bad Girls
Club” were seen stripping, and when some at the table seemed to disapprove, one
participant announced that she had taken some stripping classes herself. This
voluntary confession actually changed the general feeling at the table as other
participants admitted to being interested in taking stripping lessons as well.
At this point in the viewing, the participants took their acceptance of the
women one step further by finding similarities between the Bad Girls and their
private lives. The participants rationalized the Bad Girls behavior by giving examples
and using situations from their own experiences. This not only states acceptance of
the Bad Girls but clarifies similarities and commonalities between the audiences’
viewing the show and the messages being translated. The audience has now applied
the Bad Girls behavior to themselves making the connection between what they see
on television and their own lives, which is vital in message transmittal, acceptance,
and implementation. Although most of the reactions to the women on “The Bad Girls
86
Club” at first appeared negative, in some situations the participants seemed to accept
the behavior, and even defend or relate it to their own lives.
As the episode viewings progressed there was clearly more use of profanity,
explicitly, and vulgarity by the participants. In general, even the phrases and
comments became crasser and almost began to sounds more like the ways in which
the bad girls speak on the program. Even the volume of the participants grew louder
throughout the episodes. This evolution could be seen in each participant. As they
commented poorly on the behaviors and actions of the Bad Girls, they began to react
in behavior more similar to the Bad Girls than when the viewing initially began. To
add to this change in behavior, the participants even began to mockingly threaten or
copy the aggressiveness shown by the bad girls. For example, in the first showing the
female participants all took notice of the physical attractiveness of the waiter, they
discussed and giggled about it in private throughout the episode, but it wasn’t until
the end of the episode that the female participants informed the waiter about their
thoughts. Also during both showing, the participants would mockingly challenge one
another, saying “You wanna fight” or “Let’s go right now” in reaction to another who
they disagreed with. The group often made jokes about engaging in fights themselves,
which caused great laughter at both events. Lastly, during the second showing a few
participants even purposed a toast, cheered, and chanted “Bad Girls” as they laughed
about starting their own Bad Girls Club.
87
This positively identifies the translation of messages as the women are now
mimicking the behavior of “The Bad Girls Club.” In a one hour episode the audience
was able to clearly engage with the messages being disseminated. It began with
acceptance, as the audience identified positive attributes about the Bad Girls. This
moved to rationalization and discovering similarities with the Bad Girls and their own
private lives. Finally, the audience implanted the messages they received by copying
the behavior and actions of the Bad Girls. Although, the threats of violence were in a
joking manner, the conduct of the audience changed drastically from the beginning of
the episode to the end which means certain messages were communicated, received,
and put to use supporting the idea of audience engagement.
This is not to infer that all messages were openly accepted by the audience;
quite the contrary, there was quite a bit of shock and disapproval throughout the
episodes as well. The most common reaction by non-participants (i.e. others in the
restaurant) was a general disgust; one woman was seen covering her mouth and
shaking her head, but she did not look away from the screen for a significant amount
of time. Coinciding with the shock value of the show there were comments such as
“Nasty” “Gross” and “Oh my god” over fifteen times during the two showings. The
participants were clearly taken aback by the women on the show and it was obvious
that an overwhelming majority of the shock steamed from disapproval. The leading
topic of disapproval was in the clothing, or lack of clothing, worn by the Bad Girls.
Statements such as, “I can’t believe what they wear”, “She has clothes on, that’s the
88
first time she has had clothes on and she still looks like shit” and “Again with the
thong wearing girl” summarize the general feelings of dislike from the clothing
choices on the program. Another noticed reaction held solely by the older participants
was disapproval for the body modification the bad girls had chosen. Statements
included: “Are her dimples pierced?” “That one girl right here is why makeup
companies make millions of dollars” and side discussions on tattoos and piercings.
These comments were held only by the older participants (those over the age of 40),
and were not as universally agreed upon as those related to clothing.
The Bad Girls are presenting messages of gendered behavior and actions, and
the audience, who is intensely viewing, are receiving those messages. But unlike the
ones discussed previously, these messages seem to cross the line of appropriate
gendered messages (based on the individual’s ideal of appropriate gender
expectations) therefore they were rejected. Yet, this does not mean that messages
were not transmitted. The audience takes away from these scenes ideas of
inappropriate gendered behavior. These ideas still frame their actions, behaviors,
ideals, etc. just not in as obvious a way the previous ones. Instead these messages
inform the audience of inappropriate behavior that should not be reflected, which is
why the audience was so quick to verbally dismiss them. The participants were still
distributed gendered messages, this is clear by the engagement heard and seen by the
researcher, but they were implemented differently because they fall into an unsuitable
sphere.
89
All message implantation is depended upon the individual receiving the
message. Because of this, and because the basis of this research is gendered
messages, it is important to identify the engagement difference between the male and
female participants. At both showings the number of women participants heavily
outweighed the men; the first showing included 8 women and 2 men while the second
included 11 women and 2 men. Yet, for both showings there was a male viewer
present, and although in both instances they were the quieter participants in the group
there were a few reactions worth noting. In general the men shared the initial shock
value and disapproval of certain behaviors displayed by the Bad Girls just like the
women participants. Yet, their most distinguishable difference involved the
provocative nature of the women on “The Bad Girls Club.” Both viewings included
scenes of the Bad Girls going out to club or bars, where the women danced erotically,
often times stripping, grinding, kissing, and engaging in provocative behaviors with
one another and others. Even when the women participants seemed to be shocked and
disapproving the male participants were clearly not having the same reaction. At one
point, another participant called out one of the men for smiling and the man defended
himself saying, “Hey she’s a grown women she can do what she wants” (in reference
to the Bad Girls dancing on one another in the episode). On another occasion, the Bad
Girls were stripping on table tops and one man yelled out, “Where is this club? I need
to go.” The other female participants did not seem to be bothered by the men’s
90
interest, which was so blatantly different from their own; the women did point it out
once or twice but nothing further was said.
The male participants held very different acceptances of the messages that the
Bad Girls were disseminating when it involved levels of acceptable sexuality and
being provocative compared to the female viewers. While the females believed these
messages were beyond their level of acceptability, the men seemed very accepting,
even encouraging. As men, who are more prone to masculine traits, it is understood
why the men would have this reaction to these messages. As feminine sexual protocol
dictates sexual availability, the men were in agreement with these messages. The men
bring to the table a different view point, as they would not be considered to mimic or
replicate certain actions by the Bad Girls, so the messages from their perspective
would never reach this stage. Instead, what the men do by accepting this behavior is
reinforce the feminine protocol for sexual availability. The men of the group therefore
engage with “The Bad Girls Club” slightly different, they still are receiving
transmitted messages, buy they, as men, would not be expected to replicate female
behavior from the television show but they are capable of reinforcing or supporting
the standards for females, which they did.
It is clear that messages were being communicated from “The Bad Girls Club”
to the viewers; both participants of the study and passer-bys. This can be seen in their
reaction, acceptance, rejection, and implantation of those messages while watching.
Displays of engagement with the messages differed based on the individual. As “The
91
Bad Girls Club” is designed as a reality television program, it is ideally supposed to
represent real life; which includes gendered behaviors, actions, expressions, etc.
Therefore, the audience was engaging with specifically gendered messages while
watching the program; some of which developed into full implantation, while others
were rejected. Still, even the male participants found themselves receiving and
engaging with gendered messages during the public viewing.
92
Chapter 5: Discussion
“The Bad Girls Club” centers around a group of women who are “Bad” at
being “Girls”, thus their feminine characteristics are put into question simply by the
title of the show. The aggressive nature displayed by some of the women would seem
to validate this belief. There are multiple scenes of physical and verbal
confrontations, attacks, and, at first glance, masculine expressions of emotion. Yet, it
would be overly eager to fully categorize each woman as completely “Bad” at being
feminine because, many of the actions, responses, and communications in the house
also reflect very traditional feminine performances. The women of this show seem to
walk a line between traditionally masculine performances and traditionally feminine
performances.
The most obvious contradiction to the title of the show, yet perfect example of
feminine standards, was Annie because she aligned herself most closely with
traditional feminine characteristics throughout the season. Annie’s entire persona on
the show was a message to the female viewers of the proper feminine ideal by
traditional standards. Even when she did express non-traditional practices like
revenge or anger it was done passively and through socially acceptable feminine
expressions. The viewers who may be off-put by the aggression and violence of the
other women can look to Annie and see how the traditional feminine expressions of
handling emotions like anger and dislike are dealt with. Those who mirror Annie’s
behaviors are mirroring traditionally feminine characteristics. Annie served as an
93
alter-ego to the other women in the house (i.e. the ultra-feminine) often times
allowing the other women the opportunity to express their dominance. Annie’s meek
and understated character combined with her unwillingness to be as aggressive as the
others, lead her roommates to often express their dominance over her or even in
protection of her. Without Annie the entire dynamics of the household would have
been very different; meaning, that without Annie many of the other roommates might
not have had an opportunity to express their masculine performances.
This leads to the idea of the dependency of masculinity on femininity; in
order for someone to be dominant another must be subordinate. The women of “The
Bad Girls Club” needed Annie in order to express their “hegemonic masculine” traits
at times. As “hegemonic masculinity” uses its superior standing in the gender
hierarchy to define what constitutes femininity, it therefore needs femininity to serve
as it’s “other”. Masculinity cannot be expressed or used without the co-existence of
femininity to serve as subordinate and opposite (McGuffrey, Shawn and Rich 1999;
Weitzer and Kubrin 2009). The battle for power within the Bad Girl’s house led to
verbal and physical fights, but there was always Annie who served as the subservient
feminine to another’s dominance and masculine performance. This message speaks to
the connection between gendered behaviors, and how a pure existence of masculine
traits depends upon and cannot be fully expressed without femininity.
Complete masculine performances did not dominate the show; there were
plenty of expressions of proper feminine characteristics. There was a significant
94
amount of time throughout the season where the participants were grooming, dressing
or physically preparing themselves to go out in public. They were putting in large
amounts of effort to reach the social standards of beauty in our culture as a way to
attract men and achieve the feminine standard of beauty in society. The women also
used appearances of strong sexual availability in attracting men. These images clearly
send messages in support of traditional feminine standards as they are teaching
women how to achieve feminine standards of attractiveness and by doing so are thus
perpetuating the status quo of gendered societal standards for women in society.
Many of the altercations on the show resulted in non-traditional feminine
behaviors, yet, can still be seen as reflective and often times based on feminine
standards and expectations. Some were caused by means of protection, one woman
standing up for another (such as was very common for Annie) others were reinforced
by a relational aggression (encouragement and reinforcement by others). These
actions fall within feminine expressions of behavior (not exclusively, but would
qualify as feminine nonetheless). Following this logic, it may be possible to conclude
that without the relational passive aggressive support, or need of protection for
another, these emotions and feelings may not have even led to a masculine level of
aggression. It is important to indentify that these aggressive expressions were created
from and supported by traditional feminine characteristics. In this way the end result
was very “Bad” at being feminine (the expression of verbal or physical violence) but
95
the cause and creation behind it would argue just the opposite, that these women
followed very traditional feminine roles, behaviors and actions.
Similar levels of aggression can be seen in women’s expressions of sexuality.
As the women could be categorized as masculine for their sexual aggressiveness one
can also see that they abided by societal pre-described codes of femininity while
conducting this behavior. It was usually at night, in bars, clubs, or acceptable areas
and times of attraction when the women made use of their sexual aggressiveness. By
being sexually aggressive the Bad Girls also made clear their sexual availability,
which is a standard for feminine sexuality. Therefore, although they may have
followed more aggressive forms of attractions than socially pre-described for women,
they did so by also complying with societal feminine standards. Denzin argues that
messages disseminated through the media are crafted by, and therefore reflections of,
societal norms (1992; 1995; 2002). This commonality is the reason why certain
individuals make certain media selections, because they are drawn to them; because
they are relatable. Thus, even in a program which is advertised to portray women of
deviant or unfeminine characteristics, actions, and behaviors, these women are
transmitting messages of standard traditional feminine performances. Even certain
actions which may at first appear to contradict the traditional feminine ideal, in fact
are based from or abide by them nonetheless. The women of the show must at times
appear feminine in order for the messages to abide by society’s gendered standards.
96
At first glance it would appear these misconceptions are simply media
messaging techniques, but what are the deeper meanings of these messages? Denzin
summarized that media messages reflect society and by doing so reinforce and work
to maintain the status quo (1997, 2002). If a television program aimed at displaying
nontraditional feminine behaviors and characteristics is actually transmitting
traditional standards, then female audiences who view the program are simply being
feed the same feminine messages regardless of the program type. This being true, the
societal standards of femininity remain the same, unchanging and unchallenged by
television media, the audiences, and societal reality. The messages of traditional
femininity from “The Bad Girls Club” defend and ideally summarize Denzin’s
argument: Media crafts messages reflective of society and by doing so works to
maintain societal gendered norms (1997, 2002).
Not one of the women on this show could be categorized as representing
solely masculine or non-traditional feminine behaviors throughout the entire season.
Instead the women walked a tight-rope between masculine and feminine expressions,
and although some may have ventured more towards one side or the other, they all
throughout the show presented a dual expression of masculine and feminine
performances. Therefore it would appear the same co-presence of femininity in the
expression of hegemonic masculinity in society existed within each woman
(McGuffrey, Shawn and Rich 1999; Weitzer and Kubrin 2009). We have already
established that in order for the audience to relate to the Bad Girls there must be some
97
presence recognized societal norm of femininity, and that many of the Bad Girls
masculine traits originate from or are understood to abide by feminine standards.
Therefore when the Bad Girls appear to be performing masculine expressions they are
in actuality co-expressing feminine ones as well. This connection can be linked to
individual events, such as sexual permissiveness (masculine) connected to sexual
availability (feminine). Although as times the girls may have displayed violence or
physical aggression (masculine) they almost always steamed from means of
protections or relational aggression (feminine). This presence of feminine norms
makes the Bad Girls relatable to the audience, as the audience understands and
recognizes the societal norms for femininity. Which are created as Denizin argues as
messages are reflections of society. Yet, the continuing distribution of status quo
messages also perpetuates the current societal norms of gendered performances
(Denzin 1997, 2002).
As Denzin argues, these gendered messages, as we have shown in the
engagement section, are reaching audiences and influencing their behavior within
society (Denzin 2002). The shock value of the show was able to quickly gain the
audience’s attention: the violence, the crass language, the obscene dress. Yet, the
show was also able to maintain attention throughout both hour long public viewings.
The initial interest may have relied heavily on the scandalous events of the show
(which may in large part be credited to the editors) but in order for the attention to
remain there must have been something present in the show that was relatable for the
98
participants. Since media messages are reflections of societal norms and we have
shown how “The Bad Girls Club” is transmitting messages of feminine norms it is
understandable to then make the connection that these norms are what allow the Bad
Girls to connect to the audience. Although the initial audience reactions were of
shock and disapproval, throughout the showing there were instances where audience
members found commonalities between themselves and the Bad Girls. By making the
Bad Girls relatable the women’s actions are then more easily accepted by the
audience. The immediate mimicking of actions from the show, seen in the second
public viewing, further argues Denzin’s engagement theory, that the audience is
taking in the messages from the show, evaluating, and implanting them into their own
lives. The audience was able to accept the Bad Girls masculine expression because
they coexisted with relatable feminine ones. Expressions of transmittance,
acceptance and implantation of gendered messages could be seen within a one hour
showing.
Even in a show designed to present the polar opposite of traditional femininity
an examination of the actions, behaviors, and characteristics of the women on ”The
Bad Girls Club” shows this not to be so, at least not fully. When the women seemed
to be expressing masculinity, it was often masked feminine expressions, or was later
balanced by traditional feminine norms, for as we discussed these gendered traits
must co-exist. There was restrictions and limitation to the amount of masculinity the
women expressed due to their sex as women. The Bad Girls, who at times were
99
masculine, also expressed femininity throughout the season, this co-expression
allowed the audience to relate and accept them, thus maintaining interest in the
television program. Yet, the expressions of feminine messages adequately reflect the
gendered reality within society, as Denzin argues. This program can arguably serve as
a mirror and advocator for the status quo of women in society. For although the
women acted masculine at times, these actions were justified by proper traditional
feminine behavior throughout the season. These messages work to maintain societal
status quo and limit the acceptable expressions of women (Denzin 1992, 2002). In
sum, this program presents a veil of deviance by women while in actuality
maintaining and supporting gendered norms in society.
100
Chapter 6: Conclusion
The goal of this study was to examine the gendered messages being
communicated to audiences from the reality television program, “The Bad Girls
Club”. Although the program was presented to audiences as a show of deviant
women, this study has highlighted the covert traditional feminine messages that are
being transmitted to the audience. These gendered messages coincide with Denzin’s
theory that media messages reflect societal and cultural norms (1995, 1997 and 2002).
Even when the women did display masculine or deviant traits, a closer examination
showed feminine ties or reasoning. Also, masculine traits performed by the women
were always balanced out by the individual with traditional feminine ones. These
standard feminine characteristics are what made the Bad Girls gendered messages
relatable to an audience as they reflect the status quo of gendered reality in our
culture. The public viewings showed that the audience was able to connect with the
program, often through these types of status quo gendered messages. The effects of
these messages are vital, as Denzin argues; they work to perpetuate the status quo of
societal standards for women in society (1995, 1997 and 2002). If the messages being
communicated through television are simply reiterating gender norms, and it is these
norms that perpetuate the gender inequality, then nothing is done to change or
challenge the gendered reality in our society. The audience members who believe
they are watching nontraditional feminine behavior are in truth being exposed to
traditional feminine standards. The audience then takes these messages and applies
101
them in their own lives which limit the possibility for change as they are simply
reviewing and engaging reflections of current society.
This study was able to shed light on the duality that exists between masculine
and feminine traits for women in our society. As many have argued the existence of
“hegemonic masculinity” is contingent on the existence of its other, femininity
(McGuffrey, Shawn and Rich 1999; Weitzer and Kubrin 2009). The Bad Girls
consistently had a feminine other in Annie, while other times served as their own
feminine other throughout the season; balancing out their overly masculine behavior
with traditionally feminine behavior. This co-gendered behavior speaks to the
gendered duality that exists in our society and within individual women. The issue
arises as the hierarchical design of gendered practices places an inferior standing on
femininity, even though its existence is needed with masculine performances. This
inequality is being perpetuated through the gendered media messages of this program,
which are only working to further the current inequalities that exist among men and
women in our society.
The examination of reality television is not without fault. The program itself
leads to falseness; as the name may read “reality” most individuals understand that
there is a high level of production and editing that takes place. Therefore, although it
consists of real people (i.e. not actors with scripts) what we see on our television is
not a true reality, but instead a created form of it. This study was also limited in that it
viewed only one season and held only two public showing. Although clear messages
102
were able to be identified, there is room for much more examination regarding the
media engagement that takes place with audiences. Further public showing (perhaps
in a more private laboratory) over a significant amount of time may give future
researchers an opportunity to better grasp the interactions with the show. Additional
elements such as pre- and post-personality surveys may also help to grasp the short
and long term effects these gendered messages are having on audience members.
Future research may examine the differing effects on audience members based on
aspects such as race, age, sex, socioeconomic class, all which play a vital role in the
implantation of messages from media outlets (Denzin 2002). As this study has shown
messages do reach and have an effect of audiences, therefore future examination is
vital in understanding the societal reality in which we live. This might include
examining other “reality” television shows to note if the same messages of gender
persist in shows that are not explicitly focused on gender dynamics.
As television, and specifically reality television, continues to grow as a
massive media outlet in our society, it is important for social scientists to examine
what messages are being communicated to society. These messages affect our culture
and the creation of the reality of gendered norms which we live in and must all abide
by. If the current gendered norms lead to inequality and inferior placement of
feminine expressions that we as a society must work to change the current societal
norm. Yet, change will never be found if continuous messages of traditional gender
norms are being communicated to society through the media. Therefore future
103
research must work to identify communications of gender inequalities and norms as
well as advocate to the media for representations of more equal gendered messages.
Doing so will allow change towards a society more equal and mutually accepting of
both feminine and masculine performances by both sexes.
104
References
Ackers, J. 1992. “From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions.” Contemporary Sociology
21(5):565-569.
Adams, Natalie, Alison Schmitke and Amy Franklin. 2005. “Tomboys, Dykes, and
Girly Girls: Interrogating the subjectivities of adolescent female athletes.”
Women’s Studies Quarterly 33:17-34.
Allen, B.J. 2004. “Gender Matters” Pp. 39-64 in Difference Matters: Communicating
Social Identity. Long Grove, Il: Waveland Press.
Anonymous. 2000. “Smaller TV networks better for Women Characters, Creators,
Study Says.” GenderWatch: Media Report to Women 28:4-5.
Atkinson, John, Rosemary Black and Allan Curtis. 2008. “Exploring the Digital
Divide in an Australian Regional City: A Case Study of Albury.” Australian
Geographer 39(4): 479-493.
Banet-Weiser, Sarah and Laura Portwood-Stacer. 2006. “’I just want to be me
again!’: Beauty pagents, reality television and post-feminism.” Feminist
Theory 7(2): 255-272.
Bennett, Lisa. 2002. “NOW foundation criticizes TV’s distorted image of women.”
GenderWatch 34:14.
105
Berelson, Bernard. 1952. “Qualitative’ Content Analysis.” Pp.114-134 in Content
Analysis: In Communication Research. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Berg, Bruce L. 2009. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science Seventh
Ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Berkowtz, Dana, Manita N. Manohar and Justine E. Tinkler. 2010.“Walk Like a Man,
Talk Like a Women: Teaching the Social Construction of Gender.” Teaching
Sociology 38:132-143.
Bore, Inger-Lise Kalviknes. 2010. “(Un)funny women: TV comedy audiences and the
gendering of humor.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 13(2):139-154.
Brancato, Jim. 2007. “Domesticating Politics: The Representation of Wives and
Mothers in American Reality Television.” Film & History 37:49-56.
Budd, Richard W., Robert K. Thorp, and Lewis Donohew. 1967. “Sampling.” Pp. 1630 in Content Analysis of Communications New York, NY: The Macmillan
Company.
Cato, Mackenzie. 2008. “Stereotypes, Gender Roles, and Transformation on Reality
TV: Is Beauty and the Geek’s Social Experiment a Success?” International
Communication Association: Conference paper.
Cato, Mackenzie and Francesca Renee Dillman Carpentier. 2010.
“Conceptualizations of Female Empowerment and Enjoyment of Sexualized
106
Characters in Reality Television.” Mass Communication and Society 13:270288.
Cavender, Gray and Nancy C. Jurik. 2004. “Policing Race and Gender An Analysis
of ‘Prime Suspect 2’”. GenderWatch 32:3-4.
Cheung, Chit and Matthew Sung. 2011. “Doing Gender and Leadership.” English
Text Construction 4:85-112.
Cohen, Jonathan and Gabriel Waimann. 2009. “Who’s Afraid of Reality Shows? :
Exploring the Effects of Perceived Influences on Reality Shows and the
Concern Over Their Social Effects on Willingness to Censor.”
Communication Research 35:382-396.
Connell, Raewyn. 2010. “Empowerment as Change.” Development 53(2):171–174.
Cunningham, George B., Michael Sagas, Melanie Satore, Michelle L. Amsden, and
Anne Schellhase. 2004. “Gender Representation in the NCAA News: Is the
Glass Half Full or Half Empty?” Sex Roles 50:861-870.
Denny, Kathleen E. 2011. “Gender in Context, Content, and Approach: Comparing
Gender Messages in Girl Scout and Boy Scout Handbooks.” Gender &
Society 25:27-47.
Denzin, Norman K. 1988. “Studies in Symbolic Interaction: A Research Annual, Vol.
7, Parts A and B.” Contemporary Sociology 17(4):566-567.
107
--- 1989. “Studies in Symbolic Interaction: A Research Annual, Vol. 9.”
Contemporary Sociology 18(3):460-462.
--- 1989. “Reading ‘Tender Mercies’: Two Interpretations.” The Sociological
Quarterly 30(1):37-57.
--- 1991. “Back to Harold and Agnes.” Sociological Theory 9(2):280-285.
--- 1992. “The Conversation.” Symbolic Interaction 15(2):135-150.
--- 1995. “Information Technologies, Communicative Acts, and the Audience:
Couch’s Legacy to Communication Research.” Symbolic Interaction
18(2):165-190.
--- 1997. “Contingency, Biography, and Structure: On the history of Society for the
Study of Symbolic Interaction.” Symbolic Interaction 20(2):107-113.
--- 2002. “Handbook of Sociological Theory.” American Journal of Sociology
108(1):261-263.
--- 2012. The Cinematic Society and the Reflexive Interview.” Society 49(4):339-348.
Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonne S Lincoln. 2003. “Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry.”
Pp. 249-291 in Grounded Theory Objectivist and Constructionist Method by
Kathy Charmaz. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Eitzen, D. S. 1999. Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport.
Landham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
108
Engstrom, Erika. 2003. “Hegemony in Reality-Based TV Programming: The World
According to A Wedding Story.” GenderWatch 31:10-14.
Escoffery, David S. 2006. How Real is Reality TV? Essays on representation and
Truth. North Carolina, USA: McFarland and Company, Inc., Publishers.
Festle, M. 1996. Playing Nice: Politics and Apologies in Women’s Sports. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Fox, Annie, Danuta Bukatko, Mark Hallahan, and Mary Crawford. 2007. “The
Medium Makes a Difference: Gender Similarities and Differences in Instant
Messaging.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26(4):289-397.
Gerbner, George. 1998. “Cultivation Analysis: An Overview.” Mass Communication
& Society 1:175-194.
Gerbner,G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., and Shanahan, J. 2002. “Growing
up with television: Cultivation processes.” Pp. 43-68 in J. Bryant and D.
Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2nd ed.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gooden, Rebecca and Helen R. Winefiled. 2007. “Breast and Prostate Cancer Online
Discussion Boards. A Thematic Analysis of Gender Differences and
Similarities.” Journal of Health Psychology 12(1):103-114.
109
Griffin, P. 1992. “Changing the Game: Homophobia, Sexism, and Lesbians in Sport.”
Quest 44:251-265.
Grodin, Debra. 1991. “Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation
in the American Television Experience.” Women and Language 14(2):35
Halbert, Christy and Melissa Latimer. 1994. “’Battling’ Gendered Language: An
Analysis of the Language Used by Sports Commentators in a Televised Coed
Tennis Competition.” Sociology of Sports Journal 11:298-308.
Harris, Marla. 2004. “Gender Trouble in Paradise (Hotel), or a Good Woman is Hard
to Find.” Media Studies 4:356-358.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nahy and Patricia Leavy. 2004. “Approaches to Qualitative
Research.” Pp.496-521 in Grounded Theory by Kathy Charmaz. Oxford
University Press: New York.
Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn. 2004. Understanding Reality Television. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Jensen, Klaus B. 2002. “The Qualitative Research Process.” Pp.235-253 in A
Handbook of Media and Communication Research. Qualitative and
Quantitative Methodologies. New York, NY: Routledge.
110
Keener, Emily, JoNell Strough and Lisa DiDonato. 2012. “Gender Differences and
Similarities in Strategies for Managing Conflict with Friends and Romantic
Partners.” Sex Roles 67:83-97.
Kellner, D. 1995. “Media Culture: Culture Studies, Identity and Politics Between the
Modern and the Postmodern.” London: Routledge Press.
Kippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lerum, Kari and Shari L. Dworkin. 2009. “’Bad Girls Rule’: An Interdisciplinary
Feminist Commentary on the Report of the APA Task Force on the
Sexualization of Girls.” Journal of Sex Research 46(4):250-263.
Lorber, Judith. 2010. “Social Construction Feminism.” Pp. 243-266 in Gender
Inequality: Feminist Theory and Politics 4th Ed. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lundy, Lisa K., Amanda M. Ruth and Travis D. Park. 2008. “Simply Irresistible:
Reality TV Consumption Patterns.” Communication Quarterly 56(2):208-225.
Marshall, Catherine and Gretchen B. Rossman. 2011. Designing Qualitative
Research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
111
Mast, Marianne Schmid. 2001. “Gender Differences and Similarities in Dominance
Hierarchies in Same-Gender Groups Based on Speaking Time.” Sex Roles
44:537-556.
McGuffey, C. Shawn and B. Lindsay Rich. 1999. “Playing in the Gender
Transgression Zone: Race, Class and Hegemonic Masculinity in Middle
Childhood.” Gender & Society 13:608-627.
Mckenna, Stacey A. 2011. “Maintaining class, producing gender: Enhancement
discourse about amphetamine in entertainment media.” International Journal
of Drug Policy 22:455-462.
Montoya, R. Matthew. 2007. “Gender Similarities and Differences in Preferences for
Specific Body Parts.” Current Research in Social Psychology 13(11):133-144.
Murray, Susan & Laurie Ouellette. 2004. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture.
USA: New York University Press.
Nabi, Robin L. 2007. “Determining Dimensions of reality: A Concept Mapping of the
Reality TV Landscape.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
51(2):371-390.
Netzley, Sara Baker. 2010. “Visibility That Demystifies: Gays, Gender, and Sex on
Television.” Journal of Homosexuality 57:968-986.
112
Nielsen Research Group. “Television Audience Report 2010 and 2011.” Retrieved
October 25, 2011
(http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/reportsdownloads/2011-Reports/2010-2011-nielsen-television-audience-report.pdf).
Ng, Philiana. 2012. “Bunim/Murray Promotes Development Team Behind ‘Bad Girls
Club’.” The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 12, 2011 from
(http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bunimmurray-promotesdevelopment-team-bad-193966)
Ohannessina, Christine McCauley. 2009. “Media Use and Adolescent Psychological
Adjustment: An Examination of Gender Differences.” Journal of Child &
Family Studies. 18:582-593.
Perrin, Paul B., Martin Heesacker, Tom J. Tiegs, Lawton K. Swan, Alvin W.
Lawrence Jr., Mary B. Smith, Robin J. Carrillo, Romy L. Cawood, Cristina
M. Mejia-Millan. 2011. “Aligning Mars and Venus: The Social Construction
and Insatiability of gender Differences in romantic Relationships.” Sex Roles
64:613-628.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 2nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
113
Persell, Caroline Hodges. 1996. “Introsocsite: Introduction to Sociology - Glossary.”
Retrieved October 12,
2011(http://www.asanet.org/introtosociology/Documents/Glossary.html).
Reynolds, Kimberly Lynn. 2010. “A Qualitative and quantitative analysis of
counternormative behavior exhibited in reality television programming”.
Thesis, Department of Communication Studies, California State University,
Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Ridgeway, Cecilia and Shelley J. Correll. 2000. “Limiting Inequality through
Interaction: The End(s) of Gender.” Contemporary Sociology 20:110-120.
Ridgeway, Cecilia and Shelley J. Correll. 2004. “Unpacking the Gender System: A
theoretical Perspective on gender Beliefs and Social Relations.” Gender &
Society 18(4):510-531.
Ron, Leone and Kimberly Bissell. 2006. “Gender Differences in Third Person
Perceptions About Body Image and exposure to Reality Makeover Television
Shows.” International Communication Association: conference paper.
Rossmann, G.B. and S.F. Rallis. 2003. Learning in the Field: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
114
Schell, Lee Ann and Stephanie Rodriguez. 2000. “Our Sporting Sisters: How Male
Hegemony Stratifies Women in Sport.” Women in Sport & Physical Activity
Journal 9(1): 1-15.
Schilt, Kristen and Laurel Westbrook. 2009. “Doing Gender, Doing
Heteronormativity: ‘Gender Normal,’ Transgender People, and the Social
Maintenance of Heterosexuality.” Gender & Society 23:440-464.
Sepulveda dos Santos, Myrian. 2003. “The Brazilian Remake of the Orpheus Legend:
Film Theory and the Aesthetic Dimension.” Theory, Culture & Society
20(4):49-69.
Stefanone, Michael A., Derek Lackaff, and Devan Rosen. 2010. “The Relationship
between Traditional Mass Media and ‘Social Media’: Reality Television as a
Model for Social Network Site Behavior.” Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media 54:508-525.
Stern, Danielle M. 2005. “MTV, Reality Television and the Commodification of
Female Sexuality in the Real World.” Media Report to Women 33(2):13-21.
The Futon Critic 2009. “Oxygen’s ‘Bad Girl Club’ Season 4 Premier Become s Most
Watched Ever.” Retreived November 10, 2011
(http://www.thefutoncritic.com/
news.aspx?id=20091202oxygen02).
115
Vannini, Phillip. 2004. “Will You Marry Me?” Journal of Popular Culture
38(1):169-185.
Ward, Monique L. 2002. “Does Television Exposure Affect Emerging Adults’
Attitudes and Assumptions About Sexual relationships? Correlation and
Experimental Confirmation.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 31(1):1-15.
Weitzer, Ronald and Charis E. Kubrin. 2009. “Misogyny in Rap Music: A Content
Analysis of Prevalence and Meaning.” Men and Masculinities 12(3).
West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society
1:125-151.
---. 2009. “Accounting For Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 23: 112-122.
Whitney, Elizabeth. 2001. “Fantasy Girls: Gender in the New Universe of Science
Fiction and Fantasy Television: A Review.” GenderWatch 24:265-268.